Broad Indemnification Despite Disclaimers: How Brokers Demand Protection From Their Own Misconduct

In our ongoing series examining the 14 Hidden Dangers Lurking in Business Broker NDAs, we have explored numerous provisions that create one-sided risk allocation favoring brokers. Today we examine perhaps the most contradictory and indefensible provision: broad indemnification clauses that require buyers to defend and pay legal costs for brokers against claims related to confidential information, while simultaneously stating that brokers make no warranties about the accuracy or completeness of that information. This logical contradiction reveals how brokers have structured NDAs to shift all consequences to buyers while accepting no responsibility for their own conduct or the quality of information they provide.

The Contradictory Language From Real Broker NDAs

During our review of business broker confidentiality agreements, we encountered the following language that perfectly illustrates this contradiction. One provision states:

"The information has been provided by the Seller and/or other sources as identified. Broker has not independently verified this information and makes no guarantee or warranty as to its accuracy. Prospect shall be solely responsible for any breach of this Agreement by Prospect and shall fully indemnify, defend and hold Broker harmless from any costs, damages, or expenses whatsoever incurred by Broker by Prospect's violation of the terms of this Agreement."

Another broker NDA contains nearly identical language:

"This information provided on the Business is sensitive and confidential, and its disclosure to others may be damaging to the Business and to Seller. The information has been provided by the Seller and/or other sources as identified. Broker has not independently verified this information and makes no guarantee or warranty as to its accuracy. Prospect agrees to maintain and treat as confidential non-public information received from the Seller or Broker and agrees to indemnify and hold Broker harmless."

Let's examine what these provisions actually accomplish. The first sentence explicitly disclaims any responsibility for the accuracy of information. The broker states it has not verified the information and makes no guarantees about it. The buyer is essentially told that the broker might be providing false or misleading information and that the buyer should not rely on the broker's representations.

Yet in the very next sentence, the same agreement requires the buyer to indemnify and defend the broker against claims arising from that unverified, unwarranted information. This means that if the financial information turns out to be false, if the customer lists are outdated or inaccurate, if the asset valuations are inflated, or if any other aspect of the provided information is wrong, the buyer must pay the broker's legal defense costs and any damages against the broker.

The contradiction is concerning. The broker simultaneously says "we provide no accurate information and you shouldn't rely on us" and "you must pay our lawyers if anyone sues us for providing false information."

Understanding Indemnification and What Brokers Are Really Asking

To understand why this provision is so problematic, we need to examine what indemnification actually means. An indemnification clause requires one party to compensate another party for losses, costs, and legal fees arising from specific events or conduct. When you agree to indemnify someone, you are agreeing to pay their legal bills if they get sued, regardless of whether they bear any responsibility for the lawsuit.

In the context of broker NDAs, the indemnification clause requires you to pay the broker's legal defense costs if anyone makes a claim related to confidential information. This covers scenarios where the seller claims the broker breached confidentiality by disclosing information to you. It covers situations where a third party sues the broker for misuse of proprietary information. It covers any scenario where someone makes a claim that somehow relates to the information the broker provided.

The impact of this provision is extremely impactful. If a seller sues the broker claiming the broker violated their confidentiality agreement with the seller, you (the buyer) must pay the broker's lawyers. If a competitor of the seller sues the broker alleging that the broker misused trade secrets, you must cover the broker's legal defense costs. If a customer relationship manager sues the broker for soliciting customers without permission, you pay for the broker's legal representation.

In most of these scenarios, the broker did nothing wrong from your perspective. You did not cause the lawsuit. You did not violate anyone's rights. Yet you are contractually obligated to pay the broker's legal bills for being sued.

Why This Contradicts Fundamental Contract Principles

This combination of liability disclaimers paired with broad indemnification requirements violates basic principles of contract law and fairness recognized in North Carolina and across most states. The fundamental principle is that parties cannot have it both ways. You cannot simultaneously disclaim all responsibility for your conduct while demanding that the other party indemnify you for consequences of that conduct.

In North Carolina, as in most jurisdictions, contracts are interpreted to give effect to the reasonable expectations of the parties and to reflect logical consistency. A court examining these contradictory provisions would likely conclude that they cannot both be enforced as written. If a broker makes no warranties about information accuracy and has not verified the information, they cannot simultaneously demand indemnification for claims arising from that unverified information.

Additionally, indemnification provisions are construed strictly against the party seeking indemnification, meaning any ambiguity in the language is interpreted in favor of the party being asked to indemnify. When a broker attempts to extract broad indemnification while disclaiming all responsibility, courts have reason to narrow the scope of the indemnification requirement.

Furthermore, many states, including North Carolina, recognize public policy limitations on exculpatory clauses and indemnification provisions. These doctrines reflect the principle that parties should not be allowed to use contracts to escape responsibility for their own misconduct or negligence. While brokers can limit their liability through contract language, they cannot completely escape responsibility for fraud, gross negligence, or intentional misconduct, nor can they demand that others pay for the consequences of such conduct.

The Absence of Consideration Problem

Another fundamental defect with these indemnification provisions involves consideration. In contract law, consideration means that each party must provide something of value to the other party in exchange for their obligations. A contract is unenforceable if one party receives no benefit from their agreement.

When you agree to indemnify the broker for unrelated claims, what do you receive in exchange? The broker is not performing services related to defending themselves against lawsuits. They are not providing additional value or benefits to you. They are simply demanding that you pay for their legal defense when they are sued.

This absence of consideration raises serious questions about enforceability. If the indemnification provision is separated from the legitimate confidentiality obligations in the agreement, it arguably lacks consideration and might be unenforceable on that basis alone. You agreed to keep information confidential in exchange for receiving access to business information. That exchange involves consideration. But agreeing to pay someone's legal bills when they are sued for unrelated reasons involves no exchange of value.

Why Brokers Include These Provisions Despite Their Weakness

If these provisions are logically contradictory and potentially unenforceable, why do brokers continue including them in NDAs? The answer lies in the same practical reality we have encountered throughout this series: most buyers will not challenge these provisions or understand what they mean.

The indemnification clause operates as what legal professionals call a "boilerplate" provision. It appears in countless contracts because it is copied from template forms and included without careful analysis of whether it makes sense in this particular context. Many brokers may not fully understand the legal problems with pairing liability disclaimers with broad indemnification demands.

Additionally, the provisions create what we have termed an "in terrorem" effect. The threat of having to indemnify a broker and pay the broker's legal bills creates psychological pressure on buyers. Even if the provision is ultimately unenforceable, the threat of it is enough to make many buyers nervous about taking any action the broker might characterize as a violation.

Furthermore, brokers benefit when buyers pay settlements or legal costs to avoid litigation. If a buyer faces a broker demand for indemnification, the buyer may pay substantial amounts to settle rather than litigate over whether the provision is enforceable. The broker receives money that they might never have recovered through actual litigation. The provision serves its purpose in extracting payments even if it would not withstand judicial scrutiny.

How Courts Handle Contradictory Indemnification Provisions

When disputes arise and these provisions are tested in court, judges must resolve the contradiction between disclaiming responsibility and demanding indemnification. North Carolina courts, like courts in most states, have developed clear principles for handling these situations.

First, courts strictly construe indemnification clauses against the party seeking indemnification. This means that any ambiguity is interpreted in the broker's less favorable way. If the broker attempts to demand indemnification for broad categories of claims, courts may narrow the scope to cover only clear violations that the broker did not cause.

Second, courts recognize that liability disclaimers and broad indemnification demands can constitute unconscionable provisions when combined with unequal bargaining power. A broker presenting a take-it-or-leave-it agreement containing both a complete liability disclaimer and a requirement that buyers indemnify the broker raises red flags about unconscionability. The provisions together shift all consequences to the buyer while leaving the broker with no responsibility.

Third, many courts have held that public policy prevents enforcement of indemnification provisions for a party's own misconduct or negligence. While you can agree to indemnify someone for losses caused by third parties or circumstances beyond their control, you generally cannot agree to indemnify them for their own wrongdoing. A broker who provides false information cannot demand indemnification for being sued over that false information.

Additionally, some states have enacted anti-indemnity statutes, particularly in construction and design contexts, that prohibit indemnification for certain types of conduct. North Carolina has addressed this issue in construction contexts, and the principles reflected in those statutes suggest a strong public policy against requiring indemnification for a party's own negligence or misconduct.

Real-World Consequences of These Provisions

To understand why these provisions are so dangerous, consider an example scenario. You sign a broker NDA to evaluate a restaurant business. The broker provides financial information showing the restaurant generated $1 million in annual revenue with $300,000 in annual profit. You decide to purchase the business based on these numbers, paying $1.5 million based on a multiple of the earnings.

Six months after closing, you discover the financial information was fabricated. Actual revenue was $400,000 annually with a loss of $50,000. You invested in renovations and marketing believing the business could generate $1 million, but discovered it cannot. Your investment is now worth a fraction of what you paid.

You want to sue the broker for providing false financial information that induced you to purchase an overpriced business. You consult an attorney to pursue a fraud or negligence claim against the broker.

However, the broker's NDA disclaimer and indemnification clauses create problems. The broker claims they made no warranties about the information, so they bear no responsibility for accuracy. The broker also attempts to enforce the indemnification clause, arguing that your lawsuit itself is a "claim related to confidential information," and therefore you must pay the broker's legal defense costs.

Under the indemnification provision, even as you are attempting to recover losses from the broker's misconduct, you face liability for paying the broker's lawyers to defend themselves against your claims. This creates a perverse incentive structure where the injured party (you) ends up paying the wrongdoer's (the broker's) legal costs.

While a court would likely refuse to enforce such an indemnification demand in this scenario, you still must hire a lawyer and litigate the enforceability issue before you can recover anything. This litigation cost becomes a barrier to pursuing claims against brokers, even when the broker provided false information that cost you hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Protecting Yourself From Overreaching Indemnification Demands

If you are presented with a broker NDA containing broad indemnification provisions paired with liability disclaimers, you should immediately object and propose modifications. Here are specific steps to take:

First, request that indemnification provisions be limited to situations where the buyer actually violates confidentiality obligations. Indemnification should only apply to your conduct, not to unrelated claims against the broker.

Second, refuse to indemnify the broker for claims arising from the broker's own misconduct, fraud, gross negligence, or violations of law. Clearly state that indemnification does not apply when the broker is the primary wrongdoer.

Third, require that any indemnification obligation is mutual. If the broker demands indemnification from you, they should agree to indemnify you for your losses caused by their provision of false information. This creates appropriate balance and incentivizes the broker to verify information before providing it.

Fourth, eliminate or substantially narrow the indemnification for "claims related to confidential information." This language is extraordinarily broad and could encompass nearly any lawsuit involving the business. Replace it with specific language limited to your actual breaches of confidentiality.

Fifth, if the broker insists on maintaining indemnification provisions, require that such provisions are capped at a specific amount and do not exceed the broker's commission. This ensures that indemnification obligations do not create unlimited financial exposure.

If the broker refuses to modify these provisions, document your objections in writing. Communicate your concerns that the provisions contradict fundamental contract principles and that you are signing under protest. While this does not make unenforceable provisions enforceable, it creates a record that may be useful if disputes arise.

Moving Forward With Fair Risk Allocation

Broad indemnification provisions paired with liability disclaimers represent one of the most cynical attempts by brokers to extract one-sided terms from buyers. By simultaneously disclaiming responsibility for information accuracy while demanding that buyers pay for legal defense when the broker faces claims, brokers attempt to have complete protection from consequences while shifting all responsibility to buyers.

This contradiction reveals how thoroughly some broker NDAs have been designed to insulate brokers from accountability. The provisions cannot logically coexist and likely would not withstand judicial scrutiny if challenged. Yet their mere presence creates legal uncertainty and psychological pressure that serves brokers' purposes even if the provisions are unenforceable.

Fair risk allocation requires that parties bear responsibility for their own conduct. If a broker provides information, the broker should bear at least some responsibility for the accuracy of that information, or at minimum not demand payment from buyers when the broker is sued over that information. Buyers should not be forced to indemnify brokers for the broker's own misconduct or negligence.

Insisting on removal or substantial modification of these provisions is not unreasonable. It is necessary protection against becoming the broker's insurance policy when disputes arise.

Important Legal Disclaimer: This article provides general educational information about indemnification provisions in business broker NDAs and North Carolina contract law principles. It does not constitute legal advice for any specific situation. While North Carolina law and contract principles are discussed here, state laws vary significantly and the enforceability of specific provisions depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and varies across jurisdictions. Many states share North Carolina's concerns about contradictory indemnification provisions, though specific applications vary. Reading or relying on this article does not create an attorney-client relationship with Howard Law. If you have questions about indemnification provisions in a specific NDA or need assistance understanding or modifying such provisions, contact Howard Law at www.ehowardlaw.com for professional legal consultation.

---

Howard law is a legal and M&A advisory firm providing experienced representation for buyers and sellers navigating business transactions nationwide. We specialize in protecting client interests from unqualified or unethical intermediaries while ensuring successful deal completion with appropriate professional standards. Contact us at www.ehowardlaw.com for consultation on your business acquisition needs.