A Delaware judge has ordered Verisk Analytics to attempt to complete its planned $2.35 billion acquisition of AccuLynx, a software provider for the roofing industry, Reuters reported on Friday—more than seven months after Verisk terminated the deal.
Track U.S. M&A deals with InvestingPro — get a 55% discount.
Delaware Court of Chancery Judge Bonnie David ruled that Verisk’s attempt to withdraw from the agreement was invalid because “its intentional actions caused the failure of a closing condition.”
The ruling compels the data analytics company to continue efforts to finalize the acquisition, although the deal still requires approval from the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
Verisk announced the planned acquisition in July 2025 and initially expected to close it in the third quarter of that year. The deal aimed to integrate AccuLynx’s cloud-based business management software for roofing contractors into Verisk’s portfolio of analytics and information services serving the insurance industry.
In October, the FTC requested additional information from both companies, signaling a more rigorous antitrust review and delaying the deal’s completion.
Verisk terminated the agreement in late December after the regulator failed to complete its review by the December 26, 2025, deadline.
AccuLynx challenged the decision, notifying Verisk that it considered the termination invalid. At the time, Verisk stated that it strongly disagreed with the software developer’s position and intended to “vigorously” defend its decision. Friday’s court ruling sided with AccuLynx, affirming the company’s right to recover direct expenses related to the dispute as well as interest.
The ruling does not guarantee the deal will be completed; closing remains contingent on the outcome of the ongoing FTC antitrust review.
This decision highlights the legal risks faced by companies attempting to withdraw from signed merger agreements during protracted antitrust investigations—particularly when the company’s own actions are found to be the cause of the failure to satisfy closing conditions.
About the Author
