[gamblor956]

When you buy a home, even if you waive all contingencies, including a home inspection, if the seller fails to disclose material problems with the house, the sellers will be liable. This liability extends for years past the close of sale.

You have proven your own ignorance with your example!

The sellers are liable for some things, in some states, because there are laws that say they are liable for some things.

No such laws generally apply to corporate acquisition agreements.

[farmerstan]

And yet there are federal disclosure laws that you must disclose like lead otherwise you are liable. So again you just proved yourself wrong.

And yes, nothing protects a company from not disclosing material information regardless of “due diligence”, including fraud. So give it up.

[gamblor956]

???

I'm not sure you understood my comment. The point of my comment was that with respect to housing sales, sellers have responsibilities with regards to things not covered by the sales contract because the law says they do. It's so not the point as to whether they are state or federal laws (but on that note, the "federal disclosure laws" specifically only apply to the use of lead-based paint in housing built before 1978, or in other words, to less than 25% of the US housing market).

There are no similar laws that govern corporate acquisitions. If an acquisition agreement does not explicitly (or by incorporation) require a disclosure about "X" , then the lack of disclosure about "X" has absolutely no impact on the resolution of the parties' respective contractual obligations.

[Ensorceled]

There are no “federal you must disclose lead” laws for hostile takeovers.

There are no requirements to disclose anything at all on a hostile take over, that’s why smart people don’t waive due diligence.