A leading business law firm in Denver, Colorado

Profits Interests Explained

What is a Profits Interest?

Profits interests are the most well-known and commonly used form of equity compensation used by partnerships and limited liability companies that are taxed as partnerships to incentivize key service providers to remain invested in the success of the company. Profits interests are granted to service providers or key employees in exchange for their contribution of services to the partnership (as opposed to cash or other property).

They are similar to stock options in a corporation context, although profits interests are not ‘options’. For purposes of this article, we will refer to “partnership” as an entity, including LLCs, that are taxed as partnerships for federal income tax purposes.

A profits interest is an equity interest in a partnership that gives the holder the right to a share of future profits and appreciation of the partnership, but the holder is not entitled to participate in the capital and accumulated profits or value of the partnership as of the day of the grant of the profits interest. While a profits interest legally constitutes a form of equity (i.e. the holder is deemed an owner of the partnership and receives annual K-1s), it is not a “capital interest”. 

For example, if a partnership was valued at $1mm on the day of grant of a 5% profits interest to a grantee and later sold for $10mm, the grantee would receive 5% of $9mm ($10mm sale price minus $1mm value on grant date, multiplied by 5% (i.e., $450,000). In other words, unlike a capital interest (based on actual cash or other tangible value contributed to the partnership), a profits interest has only the right to “post-grant” partnership income and gain. 

Key Considerations in Granting Profits Interests

Following are a few key issues that typically need to be addressed in structuring profits interests:

Determination of Profits Interest Distribution Threshold

In order to satisfy federal tax law requirements, the value of the capital interests in the partnership should be determined as of the date the profits interest is granted, and this valuation should be included in the profits interest recipient’s grant agreement.

This amount, sometimes referred to as the “hurdle”, must be paid to the capital interest holders upon a complete liquidation of the partnership’s assets before any proceeds of such liquidation are paid to profits interest holders. This ensures that the value of the profits interest is $0.00 as of the date of grant.

Another way of stating this is a fair market value determination of the partnership must be established at the time of each grant of a profits interest (to do otherwise would mean the partnership could not ensure that the value of a profits interest at the time of its grant is actually $0.00). 

Vesting

Profits interests can be fully vested upon grant or can vest over time. Whether or not to require vesting differs for each partnership and transaction. Profits interests that vest over time are used in order to incentivize the key employee or service provider to remain aligned with the partnership over a longer timeframe. A couple of key differences between the treatment of vested and unvested interests are laid out below:

  • Distributions. Vested profits interests receive distributions as other owners of the partnership receive distributions, subject to the distribution threshold discussed above. With unvested profits interests, a partnership could choose for distributions to be distributed to the other owners such that the holder would not receive any distributions with respect to their unvested profits interests, or for distributions to instead be held in a separate account to be distributed to the profits interest holders once the profits interests vest. 
  • Forfeiture and Repurchase. Unvested profits interests are typically forfeited by the holder upon certain events, such as separation of service, whereas vested profit interests would typically be subject to repurchase by the partnership under those same scenarios. 
  • Allocations. If a partnership contemplates profits interests that vest over time, the partnership or operating agreement will often include a provision that allocations from prior years (when the profits interest percentage was lower) will be re-allocated to the holder of the interest upon full vesting.

Company Repurchase Rights

Profits interests are generally subject to repurchase by the partnership on certain events, most typically on discontinuation of providing employment or services to the partnership by the profits interest holder. A “put” right of the profits interest holder, which is the right to force the partnership to buy the holder’s profits interest on certain events, is rare and would only be included in an individual grant agreement negotiated specifically by the partnership and the applicable recipient.

Other Rights of the Profits Interest Holder

Often, profits interests are designated as a separate class of interests under a partnership or operating agreement. By structuring the profits interests in this manner, different rights can be set with respect to those interests, and it is almost universal that the rights attributable to profits interests are much more limited than the rights attributable to capital interests.

Among other things, profits interests are rarely entitled to vote, to be involved in management, or to have preemptive rights or rights of first refusal, etc. (which rights are typical for capital interests or interests held by founders). 

83(b) Election 

Depending on the circumstances, it may be advisable for the profits interest recipient to make what is known in the startup world as an “83(b) election”. Under Section 83(b) of the IRS Code, a taxpayer that receives property subject to vesting as compensation for services (like a profits interest) may elect to include in gross income the fair market value of the property at the time of the grant, rather than in a later year when the property becomes vested.

An 83(b) election also allows the recipient to be taxed at a capital gains rate and not an ordinary income rate down the line (if more than one year from the grant) when and if the profits interest becomes valuable. To be valid, an 83(b) election must be filed with the IRS within 30 days of the profits interest grant date.    

Example: You are granted 100 profits interest units in a startup (based on a deemed valuation of $0.00 per unit on the grant date). There is a three-year vesting period. The units are worth $500.00 per unit after 3 years and become vested. You didn’t file an 83(b) election. At the time of vesting, you will be deemed to have income of $50,000 (whether or not you have been able to actually monetize the units) and you will be required to pay ordinary income tax on that amount.

Applying a 39.6% ordinary income tax means writing a check to Uncle Sam for $19,800. Had an 83(b) election been made, no tax would be payable at the time of vesting and tax would only be payable at the time you actually monetize the units – such as on a sale of the business and then the tax is at the capital gains rate (say a cap gains rate of 20% x $50,000 = $10,000, or savings of $9,800 for this example). 

The filing or non-filing of an 83(b) election is highly important with tax consequences and is a decision that recipients should determine only after consulting with a qualified attorney or certified public accountant. 

Conclusion

Profits interests can be an effective way for partnerships to align the economic interests of key employees and service providers with those of the partnership. However, the legal considerations associated with profits interests can be complex and need to be thought through carefully by both the issuing partnerships and recipients alike.

At Linden Law Partners, we have represented hundreds of partnerships with formation, capitalization and partnership agreement considerations, including the structuring and implementation of profits interest plans and all their associated agreements. Contact us here today to let us know how we can help you.

SCHNABEL ENGINEERING ACQUIRES DEERE & AULT CONSULTANTS, INC.

Congratulations to our clients at Deere & Ault Consultants, Inc. (D&A), a water resources, civil and geotechnical engineering firm with locations in Longmont, CO and Boise, ID. D&A was acquired by Schnabel-Engineering, Inc., one of the largest engineering and design firms in the U.S. Linden Law Partners represented D&A and its shareholders on all aspects of the transaction.

The acquisition by Schnabel-Engineering, Inc. marks a significant milestone for Deere & Ault Consultants, Inc., positioning them for expanded capabilities, broader reach, and continued success in the field of water resources, civil, and geotechnical engineering.

LEARN MORE

PAT LINDEN NAMED 2020 COLORADO SUPER LAWYER FOR MERGERS & ACQUISITIONS

We are pleased to announce that Pat Linden has been named a 2020 Colorado Super Lawyer for Mergers & Acquisitions (M&A). Super Lawyers are selected annually by the legal journal Law & Politics based on 12 indicators of peer recognition and professional achievement. They represent the top 2.5 percent of attorneys in each state.

The selections are drawn from peer nominations and evaluations and third-party research. Pat was also recognized as Colorado’s best Private Equity Lawyer by Law Week in its 2019 annual Barrister’s Best publication. In 2018, Law Week selected Pat as its People’s Choice winner as Colorado’s top M&A lawyer.

Key Considerations for Convertible Debt Financings

What is Convertible Debt? 

Startups and entrepreneurs seek to raise early stage capital in a variety of ways, but one of the most common is through a convertible debt structure utilizing a promissory note that can be converted into equity securities of the issuing company on the occurrence of various events stated in the note. 

In the last few years you may have also heard of alternatives to convertible note financings through similar instruments like a “SAFE” (Simple Agreement for Future Equity) or “KISS” (Keep It Simple Securities). These instruments are very similar to convertible notes in that they contain some of the same conversion features as convertible notes, but lack certain debt features such a maturity date and interest. 

Convertible notes are technically debt and could be called due by the holder on the maturity date or a default event just like any other promissory note. However, the primary purpose of a convertible note is not that it be repaid like a loan, but rather that the note investor, in exchange for making a lower priced but higher risk early-stage debt investment, convert that debt to equity and ultimately realize on the upside of a later liquidity event for the issuing company, such as a sale, recapitalization or IPO.

Benefits of Convertible Debt.  

Permits Seed and Early Stage Companies to Raise Capital Without Measurable Valuation 

It is difficult to determine the “pre-money valuation” of an early stage company that has an idea or technology, but little or no revenues, net asset value or cash flows. A convertible note structure allows both the issuing company and its early stage investors to “defer” the valuation determination to a later date when the company raises more money based on more reliable valuation components down the road,

Such as achievement of a product development milestone, realization of revenues or profitability, a stated offer from a third party to acquire the company or raise additional financing based on a specific and more quantifiable valuation, or an IPO.

At one of those specific points in time, where a reliable valuation exists, the outstanding principal amount of the note plus accrued interest would ‘convert’ into equity of the issuing company.

Investor Avoids Overpaying for its Investment; Rewards Early Stage Investors With Equity at a Discounted Price in a Later Financing Round

The note investor typically avoids “overpaying” for any equity securities it receives upon a conversion, such as could happen if it instead purchased straight equity based on overinflated pre-money valuations that are literally pulled out of thin air – which is not uncommon in VC and other early stage investments.

The expectation is for the investor’s debt investment to convert into equity securities upon a later equity financing (typically a Series A round led by institutional or venture capital investors, but it may also be for common stock), whereby the investor will receive the same type of equity and associated shareholder rights as the later-stage investors, but will pay less for that equity because of the higher risk it took by making its debt investment when the company’s valuation was low or not yet established. 

Founders of Seed and Early Stage Companies Can Raise Capital Without Giving Away Too Much Equity Upfront

With convertible notes, the founders mitigate the risk of “giving away too much ownership” out of the chute on the first investment dollars received from investors when there’s little to no operating history for the company. As noted above, a convertible note is debt, not equity, and therefore the investor has fairly limited rights and protections, and the issuing company has few obligations to the note holders outside of standard debt obligations.

More Straightforward Terms and Documentation

Memorializing the terms of a convertible note financing is typically less cumbersome than a straight equity investment. The operative documents are a convertible note and vanilla ‘note purchase agreement’, whereas an equity financing requires, in addition to a purchase agreement, the negotiation and preparation of a number of agreements covering various shareholder rights (such as voting, registration, and co-sale rights, board rights and protections, etc.).

Key Terms in Convertible Debt Notes.

A convertible note will include terms stating the principal amount, interest rate, and maturity date like any other note. However, the key terms in a convertible note center around its conversion features, which include the conversion triggers and the conversion price as further discussed below.

Qualified Financing (or Other Material Event)

A “qualified financing” is usually one of the triggers for conversion of the holder’s debt (other customary triggers include maturity, a change of control, and an IPO). A qualified financing is an equity financing, such as the sale of Series A Preferred Stock, of a specified total dollar amount that will require the note to convert into the equity securities sold in that financing.

The threshold amount necessary to be a “qualified financing” is normally 1x – 2x the principal amount of the convertible notes outstanding, but it varies by company and transaction.

Determining the proper threshold for a qualified financing ensures that the issuing company has raised a certain amount of capital, and that the financing is bona fide, before the investor must convert and lose its priority position as the holder of a debt instrument (which legally has priority of repayment over payment to equity holders on their investments).

Conversion Price

A convertible note investor would not be rewarded for its early investment risk if it had to convert into equity at the identical price being provided to later investors as part of a qualified financing.

Therefore, the price at which the debt will be converted into equity will usually be discounted to the lower of the price obtained by applying one of the following two mechanisms (and what’s common is to give the investor the benefit of the “lower of” conversion price that results from the calculation between the these two following mechanisms).

1. Conversion Discount. A “conversion discount” is a discount on the price per share of the conversion securities to be received by the note investor upon a qualified financing and is almost always included in a convertible note. A 20% conversion discount is typical, but a range between 15% and 25% is not usual. Using the example of a 20% discount, the note holder would be able to convert into equity of the issuing company at just 80 cents on the dollar to obtain the same amount of equity as it would have were it to invest 100 cents on the dollar at the time of the qualified financing or other conversion event.

2. Valuation Cap.  A valuation cap entitles convertible note investors to equity in the company that is priced at the lower of the “valuation cap” or the pre-money valuation of the subsequent qualified financing. Like the conversion discount, a valuation cap rewards seed and early stage investors for taking additional early risk, and it also helps ensure that their stake in the company following conversion upon an extremely large next equity financing will not be unduly small.

For example, if a convertible note provides for a $2mm valuation cap and in the qualifying financing, Series A preferred shares are purchased by investors on the basis of a $4mm valuation at $1.00 per share, the note would convert into shares of Series A preferred stock as if the price per share was actually based on a $2mm valuation, resulting in an effective price of $0.50 per share for the note investor. With this valuation cap, the note investor would receive double the number of shares of Series A preferred stock than it would have if the note did not provide for a valuation cap.

Founders Be Aware of Unintended “Liquidation Windfall”

One issue that founders must think through closely in convertible note financings with valuation caps or conversion discounts is the possible unintended consequences (a windfall of sorts) of inordinately benefitting the note investors at the expense of the founders and other later round equity investors. This risk relates to the “liquidation preference” tied to the equity securities into which the note will convert. 

In its broadest sense, a “liquidation preference” provides that certain shareholders, such as holders of Series A Preferred Stock, will receive a return on their investment prior to the right of other shareholders, such as holders of Common Stock, to receive any proceeds when a company is liquidated, sold, or goes bankrupt.

For example, a 1x liquidation preference entitles the investor to be paid back 100% of its full investment, and a 1.5x liquidation preference entitles the investor to be paid 150% of its full investment, before any common shareholders are paid anything. Multiples are typically 1–2x the original investment but depending on market conditions, they can be 3x or higher.

If a company completes a Series A round at a $5mm pre-money valuation but the convertible notes previously issued have a $2.5mm valuation cap (and assuming the Series A investors have negotiated a liquidation preference above 1x), then in that instance the note investors would receive a 50% discount on the Series A shares they receive on conversion and, if treated exactly like the Series A shares, would also receive the same liquidation preference. This would likely result in a disproportionately high return for the note investors.

Savvy founders can combat this issue through one of two different approaches. The first option is to issue common stock, and not preferred stock, as the “discounted” conversion shares and issue the balance of the conversion shares as preferred stock.

The note investor would receive preferred shares in the qualified financing such that the liquidation preference matches the actual dollars invested in the note financing pre-conversion, but the remainder of the conversion shares will be common stock, which would not be entitled to a liquidation preference. 

The second option is to include terms in the note that gives the company the right to convert the note into a “shadow series” of preferred stock in the next qualified financing. The shadow series is identical in all respects to the preferred stock issued in the qualified financing, except that the aggregate liquidation preference of the shadow series will equal the principal amount of the note.

Conclusion

Convertible debt can be an effective and convenient financing structure for both startups and their early investors. However, there are key nuances for both sides of the deal that require strategic planning and evaluation in order to avoid unintended adverse consequences for founders and investors alike.

At Linden Law Partners, we have negotiated and advised companies, founders and investors on hundreds of early stage and venture capital investments, including convertible debt, KISS, SAFE and other early stage financing structures. 

Contact us here today to let us know how we can help you.

Attract Investors: 5 Business Boosts

Whether you’re just starting a new business or are preparing to scale your existing company to get to the next level, it’s common to seek out potential Attract Investors to provide the capital your company needs to take flight. Unfortunately, most founders can’t just make an appearance on Shark Tank and get top deep-pocketed investors immersed in bidding wars over funding their companies.

However, there are some practical things you can do to maximize your chances of landing the investment capital your business needs.

5 Ways You Can Help Your Business Attract Investors:

1. Present Clear Numbers

When talking with investors, you need to come prepared with detailed numbers about your business. If you’ve just started a company, you should understand and be prepared to demonstrate exactly how much cash you have and what you’ll need for all expenses on the foreseeable horizon.

If your business is more established, provide potential investors with your financial statements (which you need to make sure are 100% accurate). Most investors are willing to sign a non-disclosure agreement before being able to look under the hood at your company’s finances. 

2. Explain the Solution to a Problem that Your Business Provides

Investors will want to intricately understand what your business does and what it plans to do in the future. Giving them a detailed outline of the solution to a problem that your business can provide will help shed light on the investment opportunity. Investors are more likely to get on board if you can articulate a relatable problem and how your business is going to solve it. 

3. Walk Them Through Exactly How You Will Use the Money

Investors want to feel very comfortable that your business is going to use their money wisely. Come to any investor meeting with written information that shows exactly how you will be utilizing the investment proceeds and why you believe your strategy presents the best path to your company’s growth and a solid return to the investors.

4. Feature Your Team 

Ultimately, investors buy into people they believe can execute — they don’t just buy into ideas or products. Your team is everything. It’s either your company’s biggest asset or its biggest liability. Plus, investors want to meet and get to know not just you, but the other members of your team that they’re effectively buying into.

So be sure to showcase the key individuals that are going to be integral to the execution of you company’s plan and vision. Make sure the team is prepped and well equipped to shine before they’re introduced to potential investors.

5. Be Ready to Negotiate a Deal 

Be ready to negotiate your deal before, during and after your presentations and meetings with investors. Know what your bottom line is and if it’s reasonably attainable as you begin to negotiate, lock it down and make it happen. Nothing is more off-putting to investors than founders looking for a perfect deal or who are indecisive.

You need to be decisive in your business and good investors look for that trait in the founders they’re willing to get behind. The more you’ve planned ahead and have considered the various scenarios under which you will or won’t do a deal will pay serious dividends for you when it’s time to negotiate the particulars of the deal terms. 

At Linden Law Partners we’ve helped hundreds of businesses and investors in preparing for, structuring, negotiating, and closing investment transactions of virtually all types and sizes. Please contact us to discuss how we can help.

Rollover Structures in M&A Transactions

Private equity (PE) investors often require certain founders or sellers to exchange or “rollover” in Transactions a percentage of their equity into the buyer of the business (or into a fund or holding company controlled by the PE investor). A similar rollover structure might involve the sellers being required to “co-invest” with the buyer by directly reinvesting (or rolling) a portion of the cash received by the sellers into a minority percentage of the equity of the target company. The value of the buyer equity is then driven by the target company’s post-closing performance.

In addition to other equity-based management incentives (such as participation in an employee equity incentive plan), rollover transaction structures are used to better align the post-transaction interests of the PE investor and the sellers (such as where founders or key executives are expected to remain with the target company in some capacity after the transaction closes).

The Buyer also benefits from a rollover structure as it results in a reduction in the required cash outlay to pay the purchase price. A rollover structure can also be favorable to selling parties by providing them with an opportunity to participate in potentially high upside upon an exit of the post-closing company (think “second bite at the apple”), particularly in instances where PE partners have a track record of creating significant post-closing benefits through their capital, contacts, or operational expertise.

Rollover structures can also bridge potential valuation gaps that may exist between sellers and buyers over the target company.

Rollover Structures in M&A Transactions

A rollover structure is different than (but is sometimes combined with) the grant of post-closing stock options, LLC “profits interests” or other traditional employment-based equity in the target. Stock options and profits interests are usually subject to vesting and other company favorable terms (such as being junior in right and payment) that do not apply to the class of equity held by PE investors.

Conversely, a rollover or co-investment structure often gives the rolled equity a minority interest but the same economic rights as equity held by PE investors.

Among other things, this means that a seller’s rollover contribution will receive the benefit of the same per-share price, equivalent distribution rights and general senior ranking status of the PE investor’s equity in the target (but it also means that the seller’s capital contribution associated with the rollover is equally at-risk as that of the PE investors on a pro rata basis). Sometimes, the roll over equity is junior to the PE equity, though.

Highlighted below are certain key issues often negotiated by the parties as part of agreements relating to the roll over equity:

Amount of the Rollover :-

Although 20% is often a targeted number, the specific roll over amount is based on various factors, including the type and amount of other management equity-based incentives being offered to the sellers in the acquisition, the existing equity structure of the target company, the amount of risk the PE investor believes management of the seller should retain in the post-closing company, the PE investor’s financing needs in the acquisition, and tax considerations. In the case of an equity rollover, a Seller will typically seek for the rollover to be made on a tax-free basis, making it important for the Seller to confirm the tax treatment of his or her rollover.

Repurchase Rights :-

The PE acquirer will typically seek the right to repurchase a seller’s rollover equity upon his or her termination of employment or services to the post-closing company for any reason. However, because a seller purchases (versus being granted) the equity in the post-closing company through the rollover structure, sellers will typically seek (and should be successful in doing so) in eliminating these restrictions.

Vesting :-

Certain aggressive PE acquirers may seek to have the rollover equity vest over time, depending on the type and amount of equity being rolled over by the seller (such as with the rollover of target company equity that was subject to vesting at the time of rollover). However, a seller will normally resist these requirements with rollover structures given that the seller has made the equivalent of a capital contribution equal to the value of his or her rollover equity at the closing of the transaction.

Transfer Restrictions :-

Typically, the parties will agree to a right of first refusal in favor of the PE investor on any transfer of seller equity, with limited standard exceptions. In addition, a seller will seek to include a tag along right, while the PE investor will seek to include a drag along right.

Management Rights :-

The parties may need to agree on whether the rolled seller equity will have the same voting rights as that of the PE investors, or whether the seller will have any right to appoint directors or LLC managers. In most transactions, the PE investor will maintain control of the board / management, but these agreements will vary by deal and by PE investor

Counsel knowledgeable on negotiating and structuring rollover or co-investment terms as part of an M&A transaction is often critical to a successful deal outcome. The attorneys at Linden Law Partners have wide-ranging specialized experience with advising buyers and sellers on the various considerations and implementation of M&A transactions with rollover or co-investment elements. Contact Linden Law Partners today at 303-731-0007 or [email protected].

Earnouts in M&A Transactions

Earnouts in private merger and acquisition (M&A) transactions provide for a portion of the purchase price to be paid to the Seller contingent upon the target company reaching certain financial targets or performance milestones following the closing. Earnouts are typically among the most heavily negotiated provisions in a private company acquisition and are highly susceptible to disputes following the closing. In this blog, we highlight some of the key considerations and potential issues in structuring an earnout.

When is an Earnout Used?

Earnouts may be used in the following scenarios:

  • When the Buyer and Seller cannot reach agreement on the valuation.
  • When a target company has high potential for growth but does not have a track record to give the Buyer enough comfort that the growth to justify a higher purchase price will be achieved.
  • To encourage the continued engagement of the Seller or other key executives in the target company’s success following the sale.

The Buyer’s Perspective

Buyers often view an earnout as providing several advantages. An earnout can prevent a Buyer from over-paying for the target company because a portion of the value will be based on the target company’s actual future performance versus anticipated or predicted future performance. In addition, an earnout allocates to the Seller a portion of the risk of the target company’s future performance.

On the other hand, in order to protect the integrity of the business deal between the Buyer and Seller around the earnout, Sellers sometimes negotiate the inclusion of restrictions on the Buyer’s operation of the target company post-closing as part of the earnout provision. These restrictions may include limiting the Buyer from making certain operational changes or limiting the integration of the target company into the Buyer’s pre-transaction business during the earnout period.

The Buyer may also view an earnout provision as a risk if the Seller continues to manage the target company during the earnout period and does so in a manner primarily focused on achieving the earnout in the short term to the detriment of the target company’s long-term performance following the closing of the transaction.

The Seller’s Perspective

Generally, we advise Seller clients to negotiate for receiving all or as much of the purchase price consideration as possible at the closing, and not pursuant to an earnout. However, if the Seller is satisfied with the purchase price received at closing, that Seller may find an earnout attractive because it provides the Seller the opportunity to realize a premium on the purchase price relative to what the Buyer otherwise might have agreed to pay.

With any earnout, the Seller should be confident that the earnout targets can be realistically achieved post-closing.

Some Sellers view earnouts as disadvantageous because they defer and make contingent a portion of the purchase price or may tie Sellers to the target company for a longer time period post-closing than those Sellers may desire. Achievement of the earnout may also be completely or largely in the hands of the Buyer in instances where the Seller is not involved in the target company after the closing or does not have operational control.

Further, if the Buyer has latitude to make material changes to the management, structure, or operations of the target company following the closing, the earnout targets can be at risk.

Key Considerations in Structuring an Earnout

Earnout provisions can vary significantly from transaction to transaction. However, several key issues should be considered with any earnout, including:

  • The financial and/or non-financial targets to be achieved in the earnout. The financial and non-financial targets should be objective, measurable, and clearly defined in the purchase agreement.
    • Examples of financial targets include total revenue, net income, EBITDA or some other financial measurement that is relevant to the target company’s operations.
    • Non-financial targets may be appropriate when financial targets do not provide for a relevant measure of a target company’s performance. For example, with an emerging technology company with limited revenue on which to base a financial target, the parties may instead agree on non-financial targets, such as achievement of certain operational or product development milestones.
  • The length of the earnout period, the timing of the earnout payments, and the formula for determining earnout payments. These terms are largely driven by the financial or non-financial target chosen by the parties as well as, with respect to the earnout period, potential tax considerations for each party.
  • Form of Earnout Payment. The parties will need to agree on whether the earnout payment will be made in cash, which is typical, or in some other form of payment, such as the issuance of equity in the Buyer.
  • Procedures and Dispute Resolution. The parties should always carefully consider the procedures for calculating and verifying any relevant financial target for each earnout payment. In most cases, the parties agree to involve an independent third party, such as a mutually agreed upon accounting firm, to determine the calculations in the event of any objection to the earnout calculation.

Conclusion

Properly structuring an earnout is often a critical component of a successful private company M&A process and outcome. The attorneys at Linden Law Partners have extensive experience drafting and negotiating M&A purchase agreements, including all aspects of earnout provisions, that address the dynamics of each individual transaction.

Please contact us here or call us at (303) 731-0007 to discuss how we can help you evaluate or structure an earnout as part of any M&A transaction that you may be considering.

Practical Considerations Involving Drag-Along and Tag-Along Rights

What Are “Drag-Along” and “Tag-Along” Rights?

“Drag-along” and “tag-along” provisions are staples of venture capital and other investment agreements. They are often included in investors’ rights or shareholders’ agreements for corporations or operating agreements for limited liability companies.

The “drag-along” provision, sometimes called a “bring along,” gives a majority owner or owners the right to require the minority owners to participate in a sale of a company to a third party along with the majority. This provides the controlling owners, who typically have more at risk, greater certainty that they will be able to negotiate and approve a sale of the company on favorable terms without minority holders preventing or delaying the sale to negotiate special terms. Standard drag-along provisions provide that the minority owners sell their interests for the same price (or in accordance with the company’s liquidation provisions), and otherwise largely on the same terms and conditions as apply for the controlling owners.

The tag-along right, also known as a co-sale right, is the corollary to the drag-along. It provides that if the majority owners or, in some cases, just the founders, sell their ownership interests directly and not in connection with a sale of the entire company, the minority owners have the right to sell a pro-rata portion of their ownership at the same price and on the same terms and conditions. The purpose of the co-sale right is to protect against the controlling owners or founders cashing out their interests without the minority owners having the same opportunity.

In practice, drag-along and tag-along rights are rarely formally triggered. Rather, they serve as important checks and balances to help assure the owners act fairly and in good faith with each other by providing guard rails.

Because the motivations of each owner and the dynamics and relative bargaining power among the owners vary, investors, founders, and other owners should give careful consideration to the drafting of drag-along and tag-along rights. As with most contract provisions, a little extra preparation upfront can provide the parties with greater certainty in the future when an exit opportunity arises. Below, we highlight just a few of the key elements of drag-along and co-sale provisions.

What Circumstances Can Trigger the Drag-Along Right?

Typically, controlling owners will seek for the drag-along right to be triggered in the event of any transaction resulting in a change in control of the business involving an unaffiliated third party acquirer. Although less common, minority owners may seek to limit the types of transactions that would trigger the drag-along right, require a certain period of time to have passed before the drag-along can be triggered, or require certain valuation thresholds or other company performance benchmarks be met before a drag-along can be triggered.

The drag-along right typically can be triggered if the board and the holders of at least a majority of ownership interests approve the drag-along sale. Depending on the circumstances and negotiating leverage, a percentage ownership greater than a majority may make sense. For example, if two 35% owners are the largest holders, they may agree that they both need to be in favor of the sale to trigger the drag-along, suggesting owners holding at least 70% of the company must approve the sale in order to trigger the drag-along.

When Can Tag-Along Rights be Triggered?

The mechanism for triggering tag-along rights may, like drag-along rights, may vary based on the motivations of the parties. However, tag-along rights commonly can be triggered when the controlling owner(s) or founders key to operating the business have a deal to transfer its or their interests to an unaffiliated third party. Transfers to affiliates and for estate-planning purposes are often carved out.

Who Should Be Able to Participate in a Tag-Along Sale?

Typically, all other owners will have the right to participate in the tag-along sale.

What Type and Amount of Tag-Along Interests may be Sold by Minority Owners?

Tag-along rights apply on a proportionate ownership basis, resulting in the initiating sellers having the amount they planned to sell reduced to accommodate the sale of ownership interests held by the other owners. In situations where there is more than one class of ownership interest, the parties should ensure the formula for determining the amount and class of interests that can be sold by the minority owners in the tag-along sale is appropriate and actually works, such as on an “as converted” basis. Running through real number scenarios can be very helpful in this regard.

Careful consideration in the negotiation and drafting of drag-along and tag-along provisions are important to help ensure that investors, founders, and minority owners in privately-held companies protect their differing interests in anticipation of a future sale of the company.

The attorneys at Linden Law Partners have extensive specialized experience with drafting and negotiating a broad range of shareholder, limited liability company, and investor agreements in connection with private investments and anticipating the different merger and acquisition scenarios.

Please contact us here or call us at (303) 731-0007 to discuss how we can help your company.

Pat Linden Recognized By Law Week As Colorado’s Best Private Equity Lawyer for 2019

We are pleased to announce that Pat Linden has been selected for inclusion on Law Week Colorado’s (Law Week) Barrister’s Best list, an elite annual publication of the “best of the best” in the legal profession in Colorado. For 2019, Pat was selected as Colorado’s “Best Private Equity Lawyer” in the Barrister’s Choice category. 

Pat Linden Recognized By Law Week

According to Law Week, “[t]his isn’t Pat Linden’s first time to be listed on the Barrister’s Best list. Last year he was selected as the People’s Choice winner for mergers and acquisitions [M&A]. He hopped places on the list, but that’s a sign of the breadth of his practice rather than any change in focus.

Linden works on both sides of investments – working with companies and investors in transactions.” In 2018, Law Week also described Pat as “an entrepreneur for entrepreneurs” and “active with like-minded business people who are making moves.”

For nearly twenty years, Pat’s practice has concentrated on commercial transactions. He advises companies, investors and entrepreneurs across a broad variety of early stage, venture capital (VC), private equity (PE) and M&A deals.

Pat has represented many of the leading companies, investors and senior executives in the Rocky Mountain region on virtually all aspects of their investment and M&A transactions, ranging from seed stage investments for hundreds of thousands of dollars to PE and M&A deals reaching $700 million.

The Barrister’s Choice selection is made by the editors of Law Week with input from its readers and editorial staff. The People’s Choice award is based exclusively on votes submitted by Law Week readers. Law Week is Colorado’s only newspaper published specifically for lawyers, law firms, corporate counsel and the judiciary. It is written and edited by award-winning journalists and lawyers with long-standing credibility in the legal marketplace.

Boilerplate Clauses in Business Contracts: Why They Matter

Boilerplate clauses are those provisions typically placed at the end of a contract, often grouped together under a “Miscellaneous” or “Other” heading. They look like a lot of legalese that can continue for multiple pages. They do not relate to the substantive provisions of the contract, are mostly standardized, and not controversial, and parties typically don’t spend much time negotiating them. Do boilerplate clauses really matter, then?  

Boilerplate Clauses in Business Contracts

Boilerplate clauses are important because they define how the parties must act to enforce rights and interpret the contract. They have significant practical implications and can save headaches and lawsuits in the event a dispute arises later. The absence of certain boilerplate clauses can create ambiguity or even a different result than the parties intended when they entered into the contract.

Done correctly, boilerplate provisions will better define the relationship of the parties to the contract and provide greater certainty in the event of later disagreements and substantially reduce the cost of legal bills associated with a dispute.    

Each boilerplate clause serves a specific purpose. Not all boilerplate clauses belong in every contract. We have highlighted below a non-exhaustive list of common boilerplate clauses that should at least be considered as part of any business contract:

  • Attorneys’ Fees. This clause provides that in a legal dispute, the losing party pays the winning party’s legal fees and related costs. Under the so-called “American Rule,” each party is responsible for paying its own attorneys fees, win or lose.  Including an attorneys’ fees provision can deter a party from bringing a claim where it may not clearly prevail. This can help push the parties to reach a fair negotiated business solution. On the other hand, if one party is generally more likely to be sued than the other party, such as a seller of a business, that party may not want an attorney’s fees provision as deterrent to the other party bringing a lawsuit over a relatively small amount when compared to the costs of litigation.
  • Entire Agreement. The entire agreement clause, sometimes referred to as the integration or merger clause, provides that the contract represents the entire agreement between the parties on the subject matter of the contract.  This clause is intended to provide certainty that the contract signed by the parties includes everything the parties have agreed to. This prevents either party from claiming that prior negotiations, agreements, representations, emails, or discussions are part of the final agreement. Sometimes, other contracts are part of a transaction. In such instances those other contracts should be specifically mentioned as being part of the overall transaction.
  • Amendment. This clause typically provides that any amendments or modifications to the contract must be in writing and signed by both parties. This is intended to prevent a party from later claiming that a verbal change or one email to another party was made to amend the contract after its execution.
  • Assignment. Generally under common law, either party has the ability to assign its rights under a contract to a third party. This clause specifies whether assignment is permitted without the consent of the other party.  Often it is tailored to the particular contract. For example, if one party anticipates its business being acquired at some point, it may want to provide for the right to assign its contract rights to a successor in a merger or acquisition without the consent of the other party. In many cases, though, the parties expect to be dealing with each other and may insist that consent is required for any assignment.
  • Further Assurances. A further assurances clause provides that the parties will take other actions not specifically set forth in the contract if necessary to carry out the intent of the parties if there was an unintentional omission or unanticipated situation. However, courts generally will not allow a further assurances clause to change or expand the parties’ rights or obligations.  
  • Survival. Often contracts have provisions that the parties expect to continue beyond the end of a contract, such as confidentiality or an obligation to pay for services performed prior to termination. Specifying the particular provisions that should survive after the contract ends helps assure these obligations are enforceable.
  • Severability. Without a severability clause, your entire contract could be invalidated if one provision is found to be void or unenforceable. This clause is designed to keep the remainder of your contract intact and enforceable even if a court strikes down one or more of its provisions.  
  • Governing Law. The governing law clause provides which state law will apply in the interpretation and enforcement of the contract. In general, parties should choose the law of a state in which the contract will be performed or in which they have a connection. When parties are located in different states, each party often wants the laws of its state to govern, resulting in a negotiation.
  • Forum or Venue. This clause specifies where lawsuits under the contract may be filed. This is especially important if the parties are located in different states. Litigating in another state typically is more costly and inconvenient, and there is a perceived benefit to the party in its home-town courts.   

Other boilerplate clauses typically considered for most business contracts include those relating to:

  • Notice Requirements
  • No Third-Party Beneficiaries
  • Waiver of Jury Trial
  • No Waiver of Breach
  • Expenses
  • Cumulative Remedies
  • Force majeure
  • Interpretation
  • Counterparts and Electronic Signatures

While the boilerplate may not be the most exciting provisions in your contract, they are important to help assure the intent of the parties is implemented and enforceable. Boilerplate clauses should not be considered generic and simply copied and pasted from another contract.  Which boilerplate clauses to include, and with what variations, should be tailored based on each particular business relationship?

The attorneys at Linden Law Partners have extensive specialized experience with drafting and negotiating a broad range of commercial and other business contracts of all types. Please contact us here if we can be of assistance to your business.