Corporate Due Diligence Review
Structured workflow for corporate due diligence review: organise the supplied facts and documents, identify missing information, draft or analyse in stages, and verify facts, authorities and assumptions before use.
Reusable prompt for Malaysian corporate and commercial practice. It should be used with the Universal Corporate Lawyer Control Block and checked by a supervising lawyer before use externally.
Prompt
Conduct a legal due diligence review of `[TARGET]` for `[BUYER/INVESTOR]` in connection with `[TRANSACTION]`. Review corporate status, ownership, governance, material contracts, financing and security, assets, IP, employment, disputes, licences, data protection, insurance, tax documents supplied and regulatory compliance. Use a document-indexed issues table. For every finding state the source, issue, risk level, transaction consequence, further information required and recommended treatment through a condition precedent, warranty, indemnity, price adjustment, covenant or remediation. Do not state “no issue” where the relevant documents were not supplied.
Repository section: Due Diligence and M&A
Required inputs: Data room; transaction scope; materiality threshold; target details.
Suggested use: replace all square-bracket placeholders before running the prompt. For confidential corporate records, board papers, cap tables, due-diligence materials or transaction documents, use a private/local model where possible.
| Jurisdiction | Malaysia |
| Practice Area | Corporate / Commercial |
| Party Role | Any / as prompt specifies |
| Lifecycle Stage | Due Diligence and M&A |
| Document Type | Due Diligence and M&A |
| Prompt Number | 18 |
| Required Inputs | Data room, transaction scope, materiality threshold, target details. |
| Expected Output | Corporate Due Diligence Review output structured for Malaysian corporate practice. |
| Reviewed On | 2026-07-26 |
| Version | 1.0 |
| Verification Checklist | Distinguish facts, allegations and assumptions., Cite the document/page for each material fact where possible., Identify missing or contradictory evidence., Do not invent authorities., Check every authority and quote only verified propositions., Separate proposed drafting from facts requiring client confirmation. |
