Guides review of a merger closing document set to identify defects in board resolutions, closing certifications, and merger authorizations, with corrected document drafting and a correspondence letter to opposing counsel.
Scanned 9/11/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add sunyifeisb-art/legalwork --skill review-board-resolutions-certifications --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Review Board Resolutions Certifications?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/sunyifeisb-art-review-board-resolutions-certifications)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: review-board-resolutions-certifications
task_id: corporate-ma/review-board-resolutions-certifications
description: Guides review of a merger closing document set to identify defects in board resolutions, closing certifications, and merger authorizations, with corrected document drafting and a correspondence letter to opposing counsel.
activates_for: [planner, solver, checker]
---
# Skill: Merger Closing Document Review and Correction
## 1. Subject-matter triage (only if applicable)
- Treat the work as a closing-set review for a forward triangular merger: first confirm the transaction structure, then test each authorization, certification, and closing document against that structure.
- If multiple entities or closing dates appear in the source set, enumerate them before analysis and review each against the same merger path.
- Separate purely clerical defects from defects that affect authority, validity, or closing deliverability; the latter drive drafting and correspondence.
## 2. Failure modes the skill is correcting
- Individual document defects are flagged without determining whether the same defect recurs across the closing set and signals a systemic drafting or authorization problem.
- Resolutions are checked for substance but not for process, leaving quorum, notice, waiver, and vote mechanics untested.
- Certifications are accepted at face value without cross-checking the certified facts against the underlying organizational record and executed closing papers.
- Stockholder approval is treated in isolation instead of being reconciled with the charter, bylaws, merger agreement, and any required consent mechanics.
- The merger subsidiary’s authority is overlooked, even though the forward triangular structure depends on its valid approval of the transaction.
- Defects are described without tying them to the downstream closing consequence, so the user cannot tell which issues block closing, require amendment, or merely merit cleanup.
- Document fixes are suggested without indicating the exact corrective action for each instrument or how the correction propagates to related documents.
## 3. Legal frameworks / domain conventions that apply
- Forward triangular merger mechanics require the merger subsidiary to merge into the target, with the target surviving as a subsidiary of the acquirer; all closing authorizations must match that structure.
- Corporate authorization must be tested under the applicable corporate statute and the governing organizational documents, including board approval authority, stockholder approval thresholds, and any class-vote or consent requirements.
- Board action should reflect the applicable statutory rules for board meetings, written consents, quorum, and approval formalities under the governing corporate law.
- Stockholder written consent must comply with the applicable corporate statute and the entity’s certificate or charter provisions governing action by consent.
- Officers’ certificates should certify only facts that can be verified from the organizational record, good standing evidence, and executed transaction documents.
- Secretary’s certificates should attach the currently effective governing documents and the correct resolutions or consents, without stale or incomplete exhibits.
- Incumbency certificates should identify authorized signatories and specimen signatures that match the signatories actually used on the closing set.
- Closing checklists should reflect deliverable ownership, status, dependencies, and any defect-driven rework needed before close.
- The correspondence letter to opposing counsel should be professional, precise, and limited to the document issues requiring correction.
## 4. Analytical scaffolds
- Start by listing the documents in scope and classifying each as authorization, certification, checklist item, or correspondence input.
- For each document, test in order: correct party names, correct transaction structure, correct authority source, correct execution mechanics, and correct exhibit / attachment set.
- Review board resolutions for: correct approval of the merger structure, correct identification of the parties, proper delegation to officers, and evidence of quorum and vote or written consent.
- Review the stockholder written consent for: correct approving holders, correct approval threshold, proper dating, and consistency with the merger documents and governing law.
- Review the officers’ certificate for each certified fact: match it to the source document or record that supports it; if unsupported, mark it defective.
- Review the secretary’s certificate for document currency, completeness of attachments, and consistency between the attached versions and the operative versions in the closing set.
- Review the incumbency certificate for signatory authority, title accuracy, and signature matching across the closing documents.
- Review any merger-sub authorizing document for complete authority to approve the merger and any related closing action.
- For each identified defect, draft the corrected language or corrected document using the same transactional posture but with the defect cured.
- Where a defect appears in more than one document, note the interaction so the user can correct the entire set consistently.
- For every legal proposition relied on, cite the controlling authority by name and section or comparable authority form used in the source materials or standard corporate practice.
- For the issues memo, include a defined ordinal severity scale and apply it consistently to each issue; tie the severity to closing impact.
- End the issues memo with a short Recommended Actions block that assigns each action to counsel, an officer, or other responsible role and ties it to the closing timeline.
- For the correspondence letter, identify the defect, the requested correction, and the next step needed to clear signing or closing.
## 5. Vertical / structural / temporal relationships (only if applicable)
- Track relationships vertically from governing law to charter/bylaws to board action to officer execution to filing or closing deliverable.
- Track relationships horizontally across documents so that the same defined term, party name, effective date, and transaction description remain consistent throughout the set.
- Track temporal sequence carefully: authorization must precede execution; certifications must reflect the state of affairs as of the certification date; attachments must be current as of closing; and the checklist should distinguish pre-close, signing, and post-close items.
- If one document depends on another, treat the dependency as a correction issue when the upstream defect would undermine the downstream instrument.
- If a certificate refers to an exhibit or attached version, verify that the exhibit matches the operative document in the package, not an earlier draft.
## 6. Output structure conventions
- Produce the issues memo as the primary analytical deliverable, then the corrected transaction documents, then the annotated closing checklist, then the correspondence letter.
- Write each corrected document as a standalone, operative closing document; do not leave it as commentary only or as a summary of intended changes.
- For any corrected or annotated text, make the correction identifiable in plain text as well as in formatted output, so the change survives conversion to .docx.
- Keep the issues memo organized by document, with each issue stated as: defect, why it matters, the controlling authority or governing document basis, the related document interaction, and the closing consequence.
- Use a uniform severity label for each issue and a one-line rationale for that label.
- Include a concise correction note in each corrected document showing what was fixed and why.
- Make the annotated closing checklist operational: show each deliverable, owner, dependency, and status, and reflect any defect-driven follow-up.
- Keep the correspondence letter firm but cooperative; request specific revised documents and identify the needed response path.
- Before finishing, confirm that each named deliverable is actually drafted, internally consistent, and contains operative text rather than only commentary.
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!