by John L. Watkins
I want to thank everyone who has read this blog over the past two years. Effective tomorrow, two of my fellow shareholders and I will be joining the Atlanta office of another law firm.
It has been a privilege practicing with the lawyers at CTF. All are first rate, and I wish my colleagues staying at CTF all the best for the future.
My colleagues and I who are leaving are very excited about our new opportunity. I will continue to post and to write articles on legal topics in other forums.
Regards.
John
Friday, July 23, 2010
Monday, September 21, 2009
Buy/Sell Agreements 101 - Understanding the Basics
By Thomas L. McLain
Whether your small company is a corporation or a limited liability company, most legal advisors recommend that buy-sell provisions be a part of your company documentation. Buy-sell provisions accomplish at least two purposes. First, by specifying the terms pursuant to which an equity owner may sell or transfer an equity interest in the company, the buy-sell provisions provide continuity of ownership and control. Second, buy-sell provisions provide liquidity in the event of the death or disability of an equity owner. By spelling out up front the terms pursuant to which these and other goals are accomplished, the owners should eliminate anxiety, pain, and real controversy later. However there is a lot to consider and this outline of the basics of buy-sell provisions will prime the business owner for an effective consultation with their company attorney.
Types of Buy-Sell Structures. In the case of a corporation, the buy-sell agreement is a stand-alone agreement. In contrast, in the case of a limited liability company, the buy-sell provisions are typically incorporated into the operating agreement. In either case, there are two types of buy-sell structures based upon how the payments are actually made.
· Redemption structures. This type of structure contemplates that the company purchase the equity interest of the selling equity owner.
· Cross-purchase structures. This type of structure contemplates that the remaining owners purchase the equity interest of the selling equity owner.
Triggering events. When an event occurs that causes the buy-sell provisions to be applied, it is said to be a triggering event. There are a variety if triggering events and some of the most common are summarized below.
· Death. The death of an equity owner is usually a triggering event, either based on the theory that the estate of the deceased owner will need liquidity, or based on the theory that the remaining owners do not want to be forced to deal with a representative of the estate. Sometimes the death of an equity owner gives the representative of the estate the right to force the purchase of the equity interest; other times, the death of an equity owner gives the company or the remaining equity owners the right to force the sale of the equity interest.
· Disability. Permanent disability is a triggering event for most of the same reasons that death is a triggering event. If the company has disability insurance, then the terms of the buy-sell provisions need to be coordinated with the terms of the disability insurance policy.
· Bankruptcy. The bankruptcy of an equity owner is almost always a triggering event because having a pre-determined method for the valuation and sale of an equity interest reduces the involvement of the company in the bankruptcy process and provides liquidity.
· Voluntary or Involuntary Departure. Some buy-sell provisions allow the company to force the sale of the equity interest of an equity owner who is no longer involved in the company as a result of a resignation or termination.
· Divorce. Some buy-sell provisions allow the company to force the sale of the equity interest of an equity owner who becomes a part of a divorce proceeding. There are pros and cons to divorce as a triggering event and these need to be considered.
· Proposed Transfer. The most common triggering event occurs when an equity owner decides to sell or transfer their equity interest to a third party. If it’s a sale, there is typically an opportunity to match the terms of the sale. If it’s a transfer, there is typically an opportunity to approve or disapprove the transferee.
Valuation. One of the key reasons for adopting buy-sell agreement is to provide a rational approach to business valuation in the case of a departing equity owner. Some buy-out provisions use different valuation techniques depending on the nature of the departure: For example, the valuation for a departing owner who has been terminated for cause by the company may be less favorable that then valuation used for a payment to the estate of a deceased equity owner. Some of the mechanisms used for valuations include:
· Book Value. Usually the least favorable to the departing equity owner.
· Market value. This method is implicitly used when a departing equity owner has a bona fide third party offer and that offer must be matched by the company or remaining equity owners.
· Appraised Value. Appraisals may or may not give full value to the business due to the variety of methodologies that can be used and discounts applied.
· Agreed Value. Many buy-sell agreements use this method. All equity holders agree to a value of the business on an annual basis.
· Insured Value. In the case of a cross-purchase agreement funded by insurance, the amount of insurance will often be used as the measure of the value of the company. Key man life insurance can also provide a value.
Terms of Sale. In instances where the buy-sell provisions have been triggered as a result of a bona fide offer from a third party, then the terms of the sale are usually dictated by the terms of that third party offer. In other instances, there are several different considerations. For example:
· Should the departing equity owner be able to force the purchase of the equity interest? The answer to this may depend on the circumstances; for example, it may be appropriate to allow a representative of an estate to force the purchase of the equity interest.
· Should the company be able to force the sale of the equity interest? The answer to this may depend on the circumstances; for example, it may be appropriate to allow the company to force a sale of the equity interest in the event of a divorce.
· Should the company or the remaining equity owners be required to borrow the purchase price from third parties? If not and the buyers may use notes, the interest, term and payment schedule of such obligation will need to be determined.
· Should any debt obligations be secured by the equity interest being sold or other security?
Other. There are many other things that can be considered in connection with a buy-sell agreement
· Non-compete. Although not common, buy-sell provisions may include non-competes and other restrictive covenants.
· Exceptions. There are often exceptions to the buy-sell agreement, particularly in the area of transfers. An equity owner may be allowed to transfer all or a portion of an equity interest to a close relative without there being a triggering event.
· Business Continuity. Particularly in the case of buy-sells structured as a redemption that are funded by insurance, additional life insurance may be purchased to make sure that the company receives funds to recover from the loss of a key owner. If so, this needs to be coordinated with the buy-sell provisions.
Whether your small company is a corporation or a limited liability company, most legal advisors recommend that buy-sell provisions be a part of your company documentation. Buy-sell provisions accomplish at least two purposes. First, by specifying the terms pursuant to which an equity owner may sell or transfer an equity interest in the company, the buy-sell provisions provide continuity of ownership and control. Second, buy-sell provisions provide liquidity in the event of the death or disability of an equity owner. By spelling out up front the terms pursuant to which these and other goals are accomplished, the owners should eliminate anxiety, pain, and real controversy later. However there is a lot to consider and this outline of the basics of buy-sell provisions will prime the business owner for an effective consultation with their company attorney.
Types of Buy-Sell Structures. In the case of a corporation, the buy-sell agreement is a stand-alone agreement. In contrast, in the case of a limited liability company, the buy-sell provisions are typically incorporated into the operating agreement. In either case, there are two types of buy-sell structures based upon how the payments are actually made.
· Redemption structures. This type of structure contemplates that the company purchase the equity interest of the selling equity owner.
· Cross-purchase structures. This type of structure contemplates that the remaining owners purchase the equity interest of the selling equity owner.
Triggering events. When an event occurs that causes the buy-sell provisions to be applied, it is said to be a triggering event. There are a variety if triggering events and some of the most common are summarized below.
· Death. The death of an equity owner is usually a triggering event, either based on the theory that the estate of the deceased owner will need liquidity, or based on the theory that the remaining owners do not want to be forced to deal with a representative of the estate. Sometimes the death of an equity owner gives the representative of the estate the right to force the purchase of the equity interest; other times, the death of an equity owner gives the company or the remaining equity owners the right to force the sale of the equity interest.
· Disability. Permanent disability is a triggering event for most of the same reasons that death is a triggering event. If the company has disability insurance, then the terms of the buy-sell provisions need to be coordinated with the terms of the disability insurance policy.
· Bankruptcy. The bankruptcy of an equity owner is almost always a triggering event because having a pre-determined method for the valuation and sale of an equity interest reduces the involvement of the company in the bankruptcy process and provides liquidity.
· Voluntary or Involuntary Departure. Some buy-sell provisions allow the company to force the sale of the equity interest of an equity owner who is no longer involved in the company as a result of a resignation or termination.
· Divorce. Some buy-sell provisions allow the company to force the sale of the equity interest of an equity owner who becomes a part of a divorce proceeding. There are pros and cons to divorce as a triggering event and these need to be considered.
· Proposed Transfer. The most common triggering event occurs when an equity owner decides to sell or transfer their equity interest to a third party. If it’s a sale, there is typically an opportunity to match the terms of the sale. If it’s a transfer, there is typically an opportunity to approve or disapprove the transferee.
Valuation. One of the key reasons for adopting buy-sell agreement is to provide a rational approach to business valuation in the case of a departing equity owner. Some buy-out provisions use different valuation techniques depending on the nature of the departure: For example, the valuation for a departing owner who has been terminated for cause by the company may be less favorable that then valuation used for a payment to the estate of a deceased equity owner. Some of the mechanisms used for valuations include:
· Book Value. Usually the least favorable to the departing equity owner.
· Market value. This method is implicitly used when a departing equity owner has a bona fide third party offer and that offer must be matched by the company or remaining equity owners.
· Appraised Value. Appraisals may or may not give full value to the business due to the variety of methodologies that can be used and discounts applied.
· Agreed Value. Many buy-sell agreements use this method. All equity holders agree to a value of the business on an annual basis.
· Insured Value. In the case of a cross-purchase agreement funded by insurance, the amount of insurance will often be used as the measure of the value of the company. Key man life insurance can also provide a value.
Terms of Sale. In instances where the buy-sell provisions have been triggered as a result of a bona fide offer from a third party, then the terms of the sale are usually dictated by the terms of that third party offer. In other instances, there are several different considerations. For example:
· Should the departing equity owner be able to force the purchase of the equity interest? The answer to this may depend on the circumstances; for example, it may be appropriate to allow a representative of an estate to force the purchase of the equity interest.
· Should the company be able to force the sale of the equity interest? The answer to this may depend on the circumstances; for example, it may be appropriate to allow the company to force a sale of the equity interest in the event of a divorce.
· Should the company or the remaining equity owners be required to borrow the purchase price from third parties? If not and the buyers may use notes, the interest, term and payment schedule of such obligation will need to be determined.
· Should any debt obligations be secured by the equity interest being sold or other security?
Other. There are many other things that can be considered in connection with a buy-sell agreement
· Non-compete. Although not common, buy-sell provisions may include non-competes and other restrictive covenants.
· Exceptions. There are often exceptions to the buy-sell agreement, particularly in the area of transfers. An equity owner may be allowed to transfer all or a portion of an equity interest to a close relative without there being a triggering event.
· Business Continuity. Particularly in the case of buy-sells structured as a redemption that are funded by insurance, additional life insurance may be purchased to make sure that the company receives funds to recover from the loss of a key owner. If so, this needs to be coordinated with the buy-sell provisions.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Corporate social media/networking policies; Part 2 - Framework
By Thomas L. McLain
For companies, the fundamental problem with social media and social networking is that employees use them to manage not only their professional relationships, but also their personal relationships. While this dual purpose component of social media may not seem any different than email, the very public nature of social media makes it far different. Part 1 of this series on corporate social media/networking policies established the need to develop policies to address micro-blogging sites such as Twitter, professional networking sites like LinkedIn, social networking like Facebook, and information sharing sites such as Digg, YouTube, and Flickr. In this Part 2 of the series, the framework of a corporate social networking policy will be outlined.
Definition of Social Media. Any social media policy needs to contain a definition of the term "social media" so that employees will know what will be governed by the policy. Social media applications are all Web 2.0 applications; applications that essentially allow real time interaction and collaboration over the Internet. The definition should describe generically the sorts of Web 2.0 applications that are included within the definition and it should also contain a non-exclusive list of specific applications.
Company Social Media Philosophy. A company needs to determine how far its policy will extend in the workplace and beyond. In the workplace, it will want the policy to govern company-sponsored communications, or "official communications," and personal communications. Common topics for official communications include: proactive sales/marketing, reactive sale/marketing (monitoring social media and reacting to "bad press"), direct inquiry customer service, reactive customer service (monitoring social media and reacting to problems), and human resources recruitment. Official communications and personal communications outside the workplace will also have to be addressed. The philosophy should stress that regardless of whether personal communications or official communications are involved, employee productivity is not to suffer as a result of involvement with social media.
Mechanics. Employees will often already have social media accounts so the policy will need to require disclosure to the corporation of all social media accounts. Accounts which will be used for official communications will need to be reviewed for consistency with the public image the company wishes to portray. The company should also have the passwords to all accounts from which official communications are sent. Employees need to understand that accounts will be monitored and that violations of the policy may result in the termination of the employee.
"Playing the Game" and Online Demeanor. Many social media sites are set up so that a participant needs to endorse others in order to gain credibility; however, such endorsements may give the appearance that the company is actually giving the endorsement. Thus, the company has an interest to protect in connection with any social media account used by an employee that identifies the employee as an employee of the company. The policy will need to be defined and require that the employee exercise appropriate business behavior. This requirement will need to be supplemented by training. Employees must not forget that, despite the informality of the communications, the comments they make online are public and essentially permanent.
Compliance. The policy will need to be conformed to all other policies, such as the company's email, confidentiality, privacy and communications policies. The policy will need to remind employees to protect proprietary and confidential company information and trade secrets.
Legal Issues, Monitoring, Training and Enforcement. Whether addressed directly in the corporate social media policy or indirectly outside of the policy, these topics will be discussed in Part 3 of this series.
For companies, the fundamental problem with social media and social networking is that employees use them to manage not only their professional relationships, but also their personal relationships. While this dual purpose component of social media may not seem any different than email, the very public nature of social media makes it far different. Part 1 of this series on corporate social media/networking policies established the need to develop policies to address micro-blogging sites such as Twitter, professional networking sites like LinkedIn, social networking like Facebook, and information sharing sites such as Digg, YouTube, and Flickr. In this Part 2 of the series, the framework of a corporate social networking policy will be outlined.
Definition of Social Media. Any social media policy needs to contain a definition of the term "social media" so that employees will know what will be governed by the policy. Social media applications are all Web 2.0 applications; applications that essentially allow real time interaction and collaboration over the Internet. The definition should describe generically the sorts of Web 2.0 applications that are included within the definition and it should also contain a non-exclusive list of specific applications.
Company Social Media Philosophy. A company needs to determine how far its policy will extend in the workplace and beyond. In the workplace, it will want the policy to govern company-sponsored communications, or "official communications," and personal communications. Common topics for official communications include: proactive sales/marketing, reactive sale/marketing (monitoring social media and reacting to "bad press"), direct inquiry customer service, reactive customer service (monitoring social media and reacting to problems), and human resources recruitment. Official communications and personal communications outside the workplace will also have to be addressed. The philosophy should stress that regardless of whether personal communications or official communications are involved, employee productivity is not to suffer as a result of involvement with social media.
Mechanics. Employees will often already have social media accounts so the policy will need to require disclosure to the corporation of all social media accounts. Accounts which will be used for official communications will need to be reviewed for consistency with the public image the company wishes to portray. The company should also have the passwords to all accounts from which official communications are sent. Employees need to understand that accounts will be monitored and that violations of the policy may result in the termination of the employee.
"Playing the Game" and Online Demeanor. Many social media sites are set up so that a participant needs to endorse others in order to gain credibility; however, such endorsements may give the appearance that the company is actually giving the endorsement. Thus, the company has an interest to protect in connection with any social media account used by an employee that identifies the employee as an employee of the company. The policy will need to be defined and require that the employee exercise appropriate business behavior. This requirement will need to be supplemented by training. Employees must not forget that, despite the informality of the communications, the comments they make online are public and essentially permanent.
Compliance. The policy will need to be conformed to all other policies, such as the company's email, confidentiality, privacy and communications policies. The policy will need to remind employees to protect proprietary and confidential company information and trade secrets.
Legal Issues, Monitoring, Training and Enforcement. Whether addressed directly in the corporate social media policy or indirectly outside of the policy, these topics will be discussed in Part 3 of this series.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
We need a social media/networking policy?!? Why, what could possibly go wrong?
Corporate Social Media Policies- Part 1
By Tom McLain
Do companies really need to develop policies to address social networking or social media? The answer to this question may be surprising – Yes. Or, in light of reports of the NFL's recent decision to implement restriction on the use of Twitter (a micro-blogging site) on game days, maybe a "yes" is not so surprising. Still, the NFL is a lot different than most businesses and the fact that it feels the need to put limits or bans in place does not necessarily mean that other companies should. The reality is that the social networking/media phenomenon may be falling below the radar screen of management of many companies for many reasons, including the informality of the media. However, there are some very real dangers that need to be considered.
At the outset, the terms "social networking" or "social media" are themselves misleading, due to the inclusion of the word "social" and due to mistaken belief that, because they occurs on a computer over the Internet, they are not a serious endeavor. For example, it is easy to dismiss social networking as just a new way to chat or gossip. However, a better way to think of social networking it is "computer-based" networking. Company executives understand the concept of networking in the traditional sense – meeting with people in face to face settings that may or may not be social for the purpose of advancing one's business. "Social networking" needs to be thought of in the same terms – its just traditional networking facilitated by computers instead of being face to face.
It is also a mistake for company executives to dismiss or underestimate the social media phenomenon as a fad or as something that is reserved to a small number of people. In August, 2009, a video was produced (for the Internet, of course) entitled "Social Media Revolution" that provided some amazing statistics:
1. By 2010 members of Generation Y will outnumber Baby Boomers;
2. The fastest growing segment on Facebook is 55-65 year-old females;
3. There are over 200,000,000 blogs and 54% of bloggers post content or "tweet" (post on Twitter) daily;
4. What happens in Vegas no longer "stays in Vegas," but shows up on YouTube, Flickr, Twitter, Facebook…
Quite simply, the raw numbers associated with social media are huge and so the question quickly becomes whether social media has any real power, reach, or impact. There is little doubt that the sheer numbers have caught the attention of sales and marketing teams. Consider the following additional statistics from "Social Media Revolution:"
1. 78% of consumers trust peer recommendations, while only 14% of consumers trust advertisements;
2. People care more about how their social group ranks products and services than how Google ranks products and services;
3. 34% of bloggers post opinions about products and brands and 25%Internet search results for the world’s top 20 largest brands are links to user-generated content.
Very quickly, two things become evident: first, the sales and marketing groups of any company will be forced to begin using social networking and social media to promote the company's products and services and, second, the sales and marketing groups of any company will be forced to begin monitoring social networking and social media to manage negative publicity about the company's products and services.
Given the informal nature of these media, there will be a stronger need to establish guidelines on how to promote products and services and how to defend them, particularly with respect to company-sponsored communications or "official" activities. Unfortunately, it’s the "unofficial" activities that can raise even higher levels of concern.
One of the aspects of social networking and media is that user profiles of the party doing the communicating typically indicate where the person works. Moreover, the communications themselves are public and may be of endless duration. So informal, unofficial communications by employees are of considerable potential concern. It is easy to imagine all manner of scenarios which could lead to embarrassment if not liability for the company. For example, suppose a public company employee is active on Twitter and well identified as a mid-level manager for the company. Suppose further than an unrelated but unscrupulous twitter user decides to use twitter as a part of a pump and dump stock scheme for that company. If our mythical company employee were to innocently pass along information from the unscrupulous Twitter user simply because he was proud of his company and that information was false, would our mythical company employee be an accomplice to the pump and dump scheme? Perhaps not, but the circumstances could prove to be highly embarrassing.
Thus, there are several points which need to be addressed in any social media policy adopted by a company. Such policies will need to address communications that are made on behalf of the company or clearly in a person's capacity as an employee. The policy may also need to address communications made in other capacities. The details of how to develop a social media/networking policy will be discussed in later blog posts, but some of the things to be weighed and considered are:
1. "Official Communications"
(a) Procedures used to approve communications?
(b) Personnel authorized to communicate?
(c) Subject matters to be communicated?
(d) Require a separate "official" account?
2. "Unofficial Communications"
(a) Require a separate "personal account?"
(b) Disclosure to company of all accounts?
(c) No references to the employee's company affiliation?
(d) Disclaimer?
(e) During office hours
(1) Time restrictions?
(2) Subject matter restrictions?
(3) Network restrictions?
(f) During personal time
(1) Subject matter restrictions?
(2) Other restrictions?
By Tom McLain
Do companies really need to develop policies to address social networking or social media? The answer to this question may be surprising – Yes. Or, in light of reports of the NFL's recent decision to implement restriction on the use of Twitter (a micro-blogging site) on game days, maybe a "yes" is not so surprising. Still, the NFL is a lot different than most businesses and the fact that it feels the need to put limits or bans in place does not necessarily mean that other companies should. The reality is that the social networking/media phenomenon may be falling below the radar screen of management of many companies for many reasons, including the informality of the media. However, there are some very real dangers that need to be considered.
At the outset, the terms "social networking" or "social media" are themselves misleading, due to the inclusion of the word "social" and due to mistaken belief that, because they occurs on a computer over the Internet, they are not a serious endeavor. For example, it is easy to dismiss social networking as just a new way to chat or gossip. However, a better way to think of social networking it is "computer-based" networking. Company executives understand the concept of networking in the traditional sense – meeting with people in face to face settings that may or may not be social for the purpose of advancing one's business. "Social networking" needs to be thought of in the same terms – its just traditional networking facilitated by computers instead of being face to face.
It is also a mistake for company executives to dismiss or underestimate the social media phenomenon as a fad or as something that is reserved to a small number of people. In August, 2009, a video was produced (for the Internet, of course) entitled "Social Media Revolution" that provided some amazing statistics:
1. By 2010 members of Generation Y will outnumber Baby Boomers;
2. The fastest growing segment on Facebook is 55-65 year-old females;
3. There are over 200,000,000 blogs and 54% of bloggers post content or "tweet" (post on Twitter) daily;
4. What happens in Vegas no longer "stays in Vegas," but shows up on YouTube, Flickr, Twitter, Facebook…
Quite simply, the raw numbers associated with social media are huge and so the question quickly becomes whether social media has any real power, reach, or impact. There is little doubt that the sheer numbers have caught the attention of sales and marketing teams. Consider the following additional statistics from "Social Media Revolution:"
1. 78% of consumers trust peer recommendations, while only 14% of consumers trust advertisements;
2. People care more about how their social group ranks products and services than how Google ranks products and services;
3. 34% of bloggers post opinions about products and brands and 25%Internet search results for the world’s top 20 largest brands are links to user-generated content.
Very quickly, two things become evident: first, the sales and marketing groups of any company will be forced to begin using social networking and social media to promote the company's products and services and, second, the sales and marketing groups of any company will be forced to begin monitoring social networking and social media to manage negative publicity about the company's products and services.
Given the informal nature of these media, there will be a stronger need to establish guidelines on how to promote products and services and how to defend them, particularly with respect to company-sponsored communications or "official" activities. Unfortunately, it’s the "unofficial" activities that can raise even higher levels of concern.
One of the aspects of social networking and media is that user profiles of the party doing the communicating typically indicate where the person works. Moreover, the communications themselves are public and may be of endless duration. So informal, unofficial communications by employees are of considerable potential concern. It is easy to imagine all manner of scenarios which could lead to embarrassment if not liability for the company. For example, suppose a public company employee is active on Twitter and well identified as a mid-level manager for the company. Suppose further than an unrelated but unscrupulous twitter user decides to use twitter as a part of a pump and dump stock scheme for that company. If our mythical company employee were to innocently pass along information from the unscrupulous Twitter user simply because he was proud of his company and that information was false, would our mythical company employee be an accomplice to the pump and dump scheme? Perhaps not, but the circumstances could prove to be highly embarrassing.
Thus, there are several points which need to be addressed in any social media policy adopted by a company. Such policies will need to address communications that are made on behalf of the company or clearly in a person's capacity as an employee. The policy may also need to address communications made in other capacities. The details of how to develop a social media/networking policy will be discussed in later blog posts, but some of the things to be weighed and considered are:
1. "Official Communications"
(a) Procedures used to approve communications?
(b) Personnel authorized to communicate?
(c) Subject matters to be communicated?
(d) Require a separate "official" account?
2. "Unofficial Communications"
(a) Require a separate "personal account?"
(b) Disclosure to company of all accounts?
(c) No references to the employee's company affiliation?
(d) Disclaimer?
(e) During office hours
(1) Time restrictions?
(2) Subject matter restrictions?
(3) Network restrictions?
(f) During personal time
(1) Subject matter restrictions?
(2) Other restrictions?
Friday, July 10, 2009
Hart-Scott-Rodino Not Limited to M & A
By Tom McLain
When the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act ("HSR") is mentioned, most people think of it as a requirement that may come into play in a merger transaction or some other type of acquisition transaction. However, there are occasional reminders that other sorts of transactions that cannot be classified as a merger or acquisition can be subject to HSR notification requirements. Just this week, such a reminder came with the announcement of an collaboration and exclusive global license agreement between Merck and Portola Pharmaceuticals. According to news reports, the licensing deal requires Merck to pay Portola a $50 million initial fee, followed by additional payments of up to $420 million upon achievement of certain milestones and also provides for double-digit royalties on worldwide sales of betrixaban, a drug for the prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation. In its press release, Merck commented that the "effectiveness of the collaboration agreement is subject to the expiration or earlier termination of the waiting period under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act, if applicable."
While it is true that the vast majority of HSR notifications are filed as a result of a transaction involving a merger or acquisition transaction, the formation of a joint venture or other corporation can trigger a requirement to file an HSR notification. More importantly for Merck, the Federal Trade Commission (the "FTC"), through its informal opinions, has explained that certain exclusive licenses will be treated as the transfer of an asset for purposes of the HSR Act. With respect to the Merck/Portola transaction, the underlying collaboration and license agreement will have to be analyzed to determine whether it is sufficiently exclusive for the FTC to consider it to be an transfer of an asset. Assuming that the Merck/Portola arrangement is sufficiently exclusive, then the parties will have to determine whether other reporting threshold tests are met such as the" size of person test" and the "size of transaction test." The FTC's Introductory Guide II provides basic information regarding the reporting thresholds.
Given that, as of the 2009 amendment to the regulations, the daily penalties that can be assessed for a failure to make a required notification filing are $16,000 per day, it is quite important to remember that the HSR Act applies to things beyond mere mergers and acquisitions. Thus, it is important to remember that, whenever two companies come together to form a joint venture, form a corporation or limited liability company, or undertake a collaborative or exclusive arrangement, the implications under the HSR Act should be considered.
When the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act ("HSR") is mentioned, most people think of it as a requirement that may come into play in a merger transaction or some other type of acquisition transaction. However, there are occasional reminders that other sorts of transactions that cannot be classified as a merger or acquisition can be subject to HSR notification requirements. Just this week, such a reminder came with the announcement of an collaboration and exclusive global license agreement between Merck and Portola Pharmaceuticals. According to news reports, the licensing deal requires Merck to pay Portola a $50 million initial fee, followed by additional payments of up to $420 million upon achievement of certain milestones and also provides for double-digit royalties on worldwide sales of betrixaban, a drug for the prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation. In its press release, Merck commented that the "effectiveness of the collaboration agreement is subject to the expiration or earlier termination of the waiting period under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act, if applicable."
While it is true that the vast majority of HSR notifications are filed as a result of a transaction involving a merger or acquisition transaction, the formation of a joint venture or other corporation can trigger a requirement to file an HSR notification. More importantly for Merck, the Federal Trade Commission (the "FTC"), through its informal opinions, has explained that certain exclusive licenses will be treated as the transfer of an asset for purposes of the HSR Act. With respect to the Merck/Portola transaction, the underlying collaboration and license agreement will have to be analyzed to determine whether it is sufficiently exclusive for the FTC to consider it to be an transfer of an asset. Assuming that the Merck/Portola arrangement is sufficiently exclusive, then the parties will have to determine whether other reporting threshold tests are met such as the" size of person test" and the "size of transaction test." The FTC's Introductory Guide II provides basic information regarding the reporting thresholds.
Given that, as of the 2009 amendment to the regulations, the daily penalties that can be assessed for a failure to make a required notification filing are $16,000 per day, it is quite important to remember that the HSR Act applies to things beyond mere mergers and acquisitions. Thus, it is important to remember that, whenever two companies come together to form a joint venture, form a corporation or limited liability company, or undertake a collaborative or exclusive arrangement, the implications under the HSR Act should be considered.
Friday, July 3, 2009
Should businesses risk using form agreements from the Internet?
By Tom McLain
You can find anything on the Internet. That includes form legal documents. However, just because you can find a form legal document that seems to pertain to your particular situation, should you use it? In the majority of instances the answer is no. Is that simply a self-serving answer from a lawyer or is there a rational basis for the answer? Read on and make your own determination.
Let me provide you with a peek into how I and many other attorneys draft contracts. At the core of the process is a skill you learned in kindergarten: cutting and pasting. Even when I am drafting a contract involving a subject matter that is new to me, there is always some component of reusing clauses and parts of agreements that I have used before. The primary driving force behind this is efficiency: if I do not have to draft everything from scratch, then I can deliver the contract to my client far more quickly (and cheaply). Moreover, I am able to reuse clauses that I have spent considerable time tweaking to get just right. In effect, the contracts that I write are generally a compilation of various "form agreements." Of course, there is also a significant amount of customized drafting and creation of clauses that are necessary to fit the particular situation.
So, if I use forms, why do I say that non-lawyers should not? Well, let me answer this by explaining a little more of my drafting process. When I consider which document to use as a starting point, I need answers to four questions: 1) which party did we represent, 2) was there equal bargaining power, 3) were there unusual circumstances, and 4) how heavily negotiated was the agreement. Thus, if I were representing a seller of a business, I would not want to start with an asset purchase agreement that I drafted while I was representing a buyer who had all the bargaining power in a transaction where the seller was desperate for cash and had no attorney. If I used that particular asset purchase agreement, then I would be using a document that was heavily stacked in favor of a buyer when I was representing a seller. This drives home a most important point: when it comes to legal documents, ONE SIZE DOES NOT FIT ALL.
So lets look at a particular example that seems to be quite common. Suppose you decide to search the Internet for a free confidentiality agreement form because you need to hire a consultant for your business. The point of a confidentiality agreement is to protect the confidential and proprietary information that your company uses to create whatever competitive advantage it has in the marketplace, arguably the single most valuable asset of the company. So, when you find a free confidentiality agreement form on the Internet that looks like it may be a good one, can you tell whether it was drafted to favor the company or to favor the consultant? If the form is "neutral," is that good enough for you or are you more interested in using a document that provides your company with as much protection as possible? Do you have the experience to know whether the form agreement is missing any key elements? Was the form agreement prepared to protect a business like yours? (Drafting to protect a technology company is far different than drafting to protect a brick manufacturer). Is the only document you need a confidentiality agreement or are there other ancillary agreements that are important? Do the provisions in the form agreement comply with the law applicable in your state or could portions of it be unenforceable? Without the answers to these questions, there is no way for you to safely predict whether using the form confidentiality agreement will protect your company or leave it vulnerable.
A confidentiality agreement may seem like a generic and harmless agreement that could be picked up from almost any source. Hopefully, this discussion has made it clear that there are many factors that need to be considered and that you need experience legal counsel to guide you through those considerations. In short, a confidentiality agreement needs to be customized to fit the particular business and the particular circumstances. The same sort of analysis holds true for almost any legal agreement you can imagine. So, can you find free legal documents on the Internet and use them? Sure. Will there be consequences? If you are extremely lucky, maybe not, but is it a risk worth taking? If you execute a form agreement, it could actually wind up being worse than having no agreement at all. Only you can decide if your business to too valuable to take such risks. You may decide that the risk is acceptable, but at least you now have an idea of the nature of that risk.
You can find anything on the Internet. That includes form legal documents. However, just because you can find a form legal document that seems to pertain to your particular situation, should you use it? In the majority of instances the answer is no. Is that simply a self-serving answer from a lawyer or is there a rational basis for the answer? Read on and make your own determination.
Let me provide you with a peek into how I and many other attorneys draft contracts. At the core of the process is a skill you learned in kindergarten: cutting and pasting. Even when I am drafting a contract involving a subject matter that is new to me, there is always some component of reusing clauses and parts of agreements that I have used before. The primary driving force behind this is efficiency: if I do not have to draft everything from scratch, then I can deliver the contract to my client far more quickly (and cheaply). Moreover, I am able to reuse clauses that I have spent considerable time tweaking to get just right. In effect, the contracts that I write are generally a compilation of various "form agreements." Of course, there is also a significant amount of customized drafting and creation of clauses that are necessary to fit the particular situation.
So, if I use forms, why do I say that non-lawyers should not? Well, let me answer this by explaining a little more of my drafting process. When I consider which document to use as a starting point, I need answers to four questions: 1) which party did we represent, 2) was there equal bargaining power, 3) were there unusual circumstances, and 4) how heavily negotiated was the agreement. Thus, if I were representing a seller of a business, I would not want to start with an asset purchase agreement that I drafted while I was representing a buyer who had all the bargaining power in a transaction where the seller was desperate for cash and had no attorney. If I used that particular asset purchase agreement, then I would be using a document that was heavily stacked in favor of a buyer when I was representing a seller. This drives home a most important point: when it comes to legal documents, ONE SIZE DOES NOT FIT ALL.
So lets look at a particular example that seems to be quite common. Suppose you decide to search the Internet for a free confidentiality agreement form because you need to hire a consultant for your business. The point of a confidentiality agreement is to protect the confidential and proprietary information that your company uses to create whatever competitive advantage it has in the marketplace, arguably the single most valuable asset of the company. So, when you find a free confidentiality agreement form on the Internet that looks like it may be a good one, can you tell whether it was drafted to favor the company or to favor the consultant? If the form is "neutral," is that good enough for you or are you more interested in using a document that provides your company with as much protection as possible? Do you have the experience to know whether the form agreement is missing any key elements? Was the form agreement prepared to protect a business like yours? (Drafting to protect a technology company is far different than drafting to protect a brick manufacturer). Is the only document you need a confidentiality agreement or are there other ancillary agreements that are important? Do the provisions in the form agreement comply with the law applicable in your state or could portions of it be unenforceable? Without the answers to these questions, there is no way for you to safely predict whether using the form confidentiality agreement will protect your company or leave it vulnerable.
A confidentiality agreement may seem like a generic and harmless agreement that could be picked up from almost any source. Hopefully, this discussion has made it clear that there are many factors that need to be considered and that you need experience legal counsel to guide you through those considerations. In short, a confidentiality agreement needs to be customized to fit the particular business and the particular circumstances. The same sort of analysis holds true for almost any legal agreement you can imagine. So, can you find free legal documents on the Internet and use them? Sure. Will there be consequences? If you are extremely lucky, maybe not, but is it a risk worth taking? If you execute a form agreement, it could actually wind up being worse than having no agreement at all. Only you can decide if your business to too valuable to take such risks. You may decide that the risk is acceptable, but at least you now have an idea of the nature of that risk.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Should you fear earnouts in M&A deals?
By Tom McLain
The Corporate Dealmaker section of The Deal.com (the online version of The Deal magazine) recently asked the question: Who's Afraid of Earnouts? The occasion for the question was a study of the deal making philosophy of Jim McCann, founder and CEO of 1-800-Flowers.com Inc., whom Kenneth Klee, writing for The Deal on June 19, 2009, dubbed the "Entrepreneurial acquirer." Mr. McCann says that his company uses earnouts in every acquisition of a company. The counter-argument to the use of earnouts is found in Klee's June 5, 2009 article, Arguments postponed. So we have Mr. McCann extolling the virtues of an earnout and other experts saying that earnouts usually wind up being nothing more than a postponement of an argument. The point behind this article is to weigh in on the question of "Who's afraid of Earnouts?"
Like any good attorney, I'll start by reframing the question before I answer it. The question that is probably a little more appropriate is: "Who's very cautious about using earnouts in an acquisition?" Answer: I am. Perhaps the primary reason for my caution is that, in my experience, a significant number of earnouts creep into deals when buyers and sellers disagree over the value of a business. Since many of these disagreements are based on a different view of the future (the seller claims to see explosive growth and the buyer claims to see conservative growth or even contraction), an earnout serves as a compromise between the optimism of the seller and the pessimism of the buyer. These types of earnouts are usually tied in some way to the revenues (either gross or net) of the business after it has been acquired: if the revenue thresholds are met, the seller will receive some additional compensation. Lets call these "business performance earnouts."
One of the first cautious in connection with earnouts, in general, and business performance earnouts, in particular, is the tendency for both sides to believe that their assumptions will be borne out. This is usually a bigger problem for sellers because they may count the additional compensation embodied in the earnout as “money in the bank.” So if a seller accepts a deal that only works economically if earnout is paid, there is a significant risk of disappointment. Not only is the earnout dependent on how the business does as a unit of the acquiring company, but the earnout can also be influenced by overall economic conditions. It is quite easy to imagine that a significant number of performance-based earnout thresholds have been missed over the last 18 months due in large measure to the overall economic malaise. However there are other reasons to be cautions about earnouts.
Business performance earnouts can be quite tricky to define. Picking an appropriate performance criteria can be much more difficult to do that it may seem. It is not unusual for one of the parties to discover after the fact that the measurement rewards behavior that would not otherwise be desired. So, a lot of careful thought needs to be done by the financial and business due diligence teams before signing off on an earnout formula. The due diligence done in support of developing an earnout formula should include many things, including, without limitation, analysis of historical trends in the business, validation of the sales efforts, determination of the sensitivity of the business to adverse economics or increased competition, careful modeling, understanding the metrics of the business and determining how best to measure its success. Even when all the homework has been done, it is not unusual for me to caution sellers to assume that they will never see a dime of the earnout and to caution buyers to assume that they will wind up paying the entire earnout irrespective of whether either side feels like the performance thresholds have been met or missed. This is because there are often ways to "game" the formula and there are many unpredictable and uncontrollable influences on the formula. In other words, in this regard, I tend to fall into the camp that says that earnouts are merely a way to delay arguments until later.
However, the most difficult part of business performance earnouts can be the way in which they impact the integration the purchased business operations into the acquiring business. This is less of a concern with financial buyer than with strategic buyers, since much less business integration is required in the case of financial buyers. The fundamental obstruction to effective integration is that the former owners of the acquired business tend to want to continue running the business in the same manner as they have always run it in order to make sure they get their earnout. Thus, it is quite easy to have the old owners become quite obstructive to change because of their desire to protect their earnout. Again, this can be controlled to a degree in the manner in which the business performance earnouts formula is designed, but the argument that can often be raised somewhere along the way by the seller is "the buyer's actions prevented me from earning my earnout." The bottom line is that the impediments to business integration that are created by business performance earnouts need to be very carefully considered.
In other cases, the earnout may be more directly related to retention of the seller for a long period of time after the acquisition. Let's call these "retention earnouts." From reading Klee's article about Mr. McCann, this seems to be the primary reason for the earnouts that 1800 Flowers uses. Mr. McCann explains that "about 60% of the company's executive team has joined through deals." If you want to retain the seller's expertise, the challenge is keeping them motivated after they have received a big payday. Thus, retention earnouts are typically less results oriented and more oriented to service longevity and quality. They can simply take the form of requiring the seller to continue to work for a period of time in order to receive the full deal consideration. More often, retention earnouts combine longevity components and revenue components and, as in the case of 1800 Flowers, there may be complimentary programs providing employment incentives. The tension in retention earnouts is not so much over whether there will be problems with integration but over whether the seller will actually remain in productive service. Needless to say, retention earnouts be difficult to design but, since they are not serving as a bridge over a dispute, they can be a little easier to create.
Earnouts have been and will continue to be part of mergers and acquisitions. Earnouts that are created primarily as a way to resolve a current dispute in the future by making payments based on thresholds that are tied solely to company performance are the ones that are least likely to work as intended and the most likely to create future problems. It may be the case that, in these uncertain economic times, there may be an upswing in the use of business performance earnouts to fill in valuation gaps. In contrast, earnouts that are designed to encourage specific behaviors like the retention of services tend to be a little more likely to operate as intended. In summary, there is no need to be afraid of earnouts, but there is every need to be cautious in implementing an earnout.
The Corporate Dealmaker section of The Deal.com (the online version of The Deal magazine) recently asked the question: Who's Afraid of Earnouts? The occasion for the question was a study of the deal making philosophy of Jim McCann, founder and CEO of 1-800-Flowers.com Inc., whom Kenneth Klee, writing for The Deal on June 19, 2009, dubbed the "Entrepreneurial acquirer." Mr. McCann says that his company uses earnouts in every acquisition of a company. The counter-argument to the use of earnouts is found in Klee's June 5, 2009 article, Arguments postponed. So we have Mr. McCann extolling the virtues of an earnout and other experts saying that earnouts usually wind up being nothing more than a postponement of an argument. The point behind this article is to weigh in on the question of "Who's afraid of Earnouts?"
Like any good attorney, I'll start by reframing the question before I answer it. The question that is probably a little more appropriate is: "Who's very cautious about using earnouts in an acquisition?" Answer: I am. Perhaps the primary reason for my caution is that, in my experience, a significant number of earnouts creep into deals when buyers and sellers disagree over the value of a business. Since many of these disagreements are based on a different view of the future (the seller claims to see explosive growth and the buyer claims to see conservative growth or even contraction), an earnout serves as a compromise between the optimism of the seller and the pessimism of the buyer. These types of earnouts are usually tied in some way to the revenues (either gross or net) of the business after it has been acquired: if the revenue thresholds are met, the seller will receive some additional compensation. Lets call these "business performance earnouts."
One of the first cautious in connection with earnouts, in general, and business performance earnouts, in particular, is the tendency for both sides to believe that their assumptions will be borne out. This is usually a bigger problem for sellers because they may count the additional compensation embodied in the earnout as “money in the bank.” So if a seller accepts a deal that only works economically if earnout is paid, there is a significant risk of disappointment. Not only is the earnout dependent on how the business does as a unit of the acquiring company, but the earnout can also be influenced by overall economic conditions. It is quite easy to imagine that a significant number of performance-based earnout thresholds have been missed over the last 18 months due in large measure to the overall economic malaise. However there are other reasons to be cautions about earnouts.
Business performance earnouts can be quite tricky to define. Picking an appropriate performance criteria can be much more difficult to do that it may seem. It is not unusual for one of the parties to discover after the fact that the measurement rewards behavior that would not otherwise be desired. So, a lot of careful thought needs to be done by the financial and business due diligence teams before signing off on an earnout formula. The due diligence done in support of developing an earnout formula should include many things, including, without limitation, analysis of historical trends in the business, validation of the sales efforts, determination of the sensitivity of the business to adverse economics or increased competition, careful modeling, understanding the metrics of the business and determining how best to measure its success. Even when all the homework has been done, it is not unusual for me to caution sellers to assume that they will never see a dime of the earnout and to caution buyers to assume that they will wind up paying the entire earnout irrespective of whether either side feels like the performance thresholds have been met or missed. This is because there are often ways to "game" the formula and there are many unpredictable and uncontrollable influences on the formula. In other words, in this regard, I tend to fall into the camp that says that earnouts are merely a way to delay arguments until later.
However, the most difficult part of business performance earnouts can be the way in which they impact the integration the purchased business operations into the acquiring business. This is less of a concern with financial buyer than with strategic buyers, since much less business integration is required in the case of financial buyers. The fundamental obstruction to effective integration is that the former owners of the acquired business tend to want to continue running the business in the same manner as they have always run it in order to make sure they get their earnout. Thus, it is quite easy to have the old owners become quite obstructive to change because of their desire to protect their earnout. Again, this can be controlled to a degree in the manner in which the business performance earnouts formula is designed, but the argument that can often be raised somewhere along the way by the seller is "the buyer's actions prevented me from earning my earnout." The bottom line is that the impediments to business integration that are created by business performance earnouts need to be very carefully considered.
In other cases, the earnout may be more directly related to retention of the seller for a long period of time after the acquisition. Let's call these "retention earnouts." From reading Klee's article about Mr. McCann, this seems to be the primary reason for the earnouts that 1800 Flowers uses. Mr. McCann explains that "about 60% of the company's executive team has joined through deals." If you want to retain the seller's expertise, the challenge is keeping them motivated after they have received a big payday. Thus, retention earnouts are typically less results oriented and more oriented to service longevity and quality. They can simply take the form of requiring the seller to continue to work for a period of time in order to receive the full deal consideration. More often, retention earnouts combine longevity components and revenue components and, as in the case of 1800 Flowers, there may be complimentary programs providing employment incentives. The tension in retention earnouts is not so much over whether there will be problems with integration but over whether the seller will actually remain in productive service. Needless to say, retention earnouts be difficult to design but, since they are not serving as a bridge over a dispute, they can be a little easier to create.
Earnouts have been and will continue to be part of mergers and acquisitions. Earnouts that are created primarily as a way to resolve a current dispute in the future by making payments based on thresholds that are tied solely to company performance are the ones that are least likely to work as intended and the most likely to create future problems. It may be the case that, in these uncertain economic times, there may be an upswing in the use of business performance earnouts to fill in valuation gaps. In contrast, earnouts that are designed to encourage specific behaviors like the retention of services tend to be a little more likely to operate as intended. In summary, there is no need to be afraid of earnouts, but there is every need to be cautious in implementing an earnout.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
