A leading business law firm in Denver, Colorado

Selling Your Company: Debunking 5 Deal Myths

You’ve worked hard, probably for years, to build your business. Sweat equity, tears, gut-wrenching decisions, and more missed family celebrations than you care to admit. Now you’re thinking about selling, and this is not the time to take shortcuts. A Harvard Business Review report finds that 70% to 90% of M&A transactions fail, usually because buyers and sellers take shortcuts during the evaluation process.

The average business owner may sell a company once in a lifetime, and the process can be confusing and uncomfortable. Understanding the truth about these five common myths will help you position yourself to get the best deal possible.

Debunking 5 Deal Myths for Selling Your Company:

Myth #1: The highest offer price is the right one.

Total purchase price is only one measure of an offer, so dig deeper to understand the quality of each offer. Often, buyers for your business – whether strategic or financial – have completed numerous M&A deals and are adept in the use of various financing options that comprise their total purchase price.

While all these options have their place and potentially add up to a higher purchase price, all increase your risk of receiving full payout of the purchase price. Consider a few examples:

  • Earnouts provide for a portion of the purchase price to be paid to you contingent upon the post-close company reaching certain financial or performance targets. Because the buyer will likely have operational, financial and accounting control post-closing, negotiating the criteria required to determine and achieve earnout metrics is crucial. 
  • Rollover equity, typically offered by a private equity buyer to owners and key management team members, involves receiving a percentage of your sale proceeds in the form of equity in the new business. The private equity firm needs your expertise and will refer to this as “skin in the game”, but you need to realize that your equity share may not turn into cash for a long time (if ever).
  • Promissory notes, another common component of a private equity offer, do sound promising – but there are innumerable ways to structure one and your payout will likely be unsecured and subordinate to third-party lenders if you don’t negotiate hard for yourself. 
  • Escrow accounts, held by a third party, retain a portion of the purchase price for a specified period (typically 12-36 months). Escrow accounts are frequently set up to protect the buyer against a breach of reps and warranties laid out in the definitive agreements and, more recently, to offset a negative purchase price adjustment. The escrow provides the buyer with a readily available method to cover its losses. 
  • Holdbacks. These are like escrows, but the buyer simply holds on to a portion of the price for a specified period. These are even less desirable than escrow accounts as at least with escrows there’s a third-party account holding the funds. With holdbacks, the buyer is effectively sitting on a portion of purchase price proceeds, requiring considerations of collateral or guarantees of the buyer’s obligation to pay the withheld funds. 

Each of these financing options can be structured in countless ways, unique to your situation, and you should work with your deal professionals to study any tax implications, voting rights and restrictions the buyer has placed on them.

It is generally safe to assume that the buyer could be motivated to delay or make payments to you contingent on performance. Comparing offers “apples to apples,” you may very well find that the best offer has a lower price but is less risky, due to the higher ratio of cash to speculative financing options. As we say in the deal business, “cash is king.”

Myth #2: It will be just like selling a house.

Sellers are frequently surprised by the typical timeline and process of selling a business. The average house sells in weeks, while the average time to sell a business is nine to 12 months. A successful sale of a business requires a great deal of planning and a year or more to control expenses, drive sales, document the operation and develop key staff. Potential buyers need to be pre-qualified and then, as they perform due diligence on your company, you need to perform due diligence on the buyers.

Unlike a house sale, the sale of a business involves confidentiality and intricate “base case” and “upside” financial models. The nuances of the letter of intent and definitive purchase agreement demand extraordinary attention to detail and in-depth discussions, as numerous variables can impact the amount and timing of proceeds paid to you.

Even after you close the deal, if part of your payment is in the form of delayed or speculative compensation (see Myth #1), you continue to be on the hook helping the new owner run the business successfully. The process of selling a company takes far longer and is infinitely more complex than selling, well, just about anything.

Myth #3: I already have all the trusted advisors I need.

Many business owners believe they don’t need the help of deal professionals to sell their business. You already have skilled accountants and attorneys who do fine work for you, but are they experienced in working on complex M&A deals?

You get one real shot at selling your company, and the outcome will impact the rest of your life. A seasoned deal-professional will provide value beyond merely executing a closing, and each type of professional serves a specific purpose.

An experienced deal-professional is driven to get you the best possible deal and has a deep understanding of the market, the multiples, the financing options and the documentation. And what about the all-important confidentiality? If word gets out that your company is for sale, you can damage your reputation with customers, vendors and employees – all of whom are critical to selling your company successfully.

A deal-professional will guide you through the difficult waters of the deal process and, although the financial outlay for this level of expertise may not be insignificant, the deal professional brings value to every aspect of the deal by finding more money in the deal, enhancing terms, and seeing subtleties that people who don’t do M&A every day will miss. It may be tiring, but it’s true: you wouldn’t hire a general practitioner to perform your heart surgery.

Myth #4: The LOI and definitive agreements are “standard.”

Expect, and demand, that your M&A attorney digs deep on the documentation. A thoughtfully negotiated and comprehensive Letter of Intent (LOI) establishes specific and critical deal terms prior to drafting the purchase or merger agreement, rather than engaging in the more arduous process of negotiating deal terms through extensive (and expensive) drafts of those definitive agreements.

An effective LOI establishes whether there really is a “meeting of the minds” between the parties that can survive the rigors of the transaction process.

Negotiating a comprehensive LOI at the beginning of an M&A deal substantially improves the likelihood of successfully closing the transaction, is more cost-effective for both parties and makes the drafting process more efficient and better coordinated. Although most of its provisions are non-binding, the LOI is often considered to be the good faith understanding of the parties and a roadmap for the definitive agreement.

Myth #5: Selling my business will be easy.

Said no successful seller, ever, because it’s simply untrue. Deals are hard, competitive, messy, exhausting, often contentious, and take a long time to complete. Buyer and seller are pitted against each other.

Statistics time and time again indicate that the best deals come out of a competitive auction process, where numerous buyers are approached, screened, and given a chance to put forward their best offer for your company; in other words, you may receive several offers to evaluate and have multiple potential buyers to meet.

Are you prepared to rework financial statements, objectively value your company, populate and monitor a data room, screen buyers, conduct tours, negotiate a deal, and handle frequent bouts of pre-deal jitters …. all the while continuing to run your business profitably? Selling your company will be an exhausting and emotional experience.

We Can Be Your M&A Deal Partners.

Putting the same level of effort into your sales strategy that you’ve put into every other strategy you used to build the business over the years can put you on the path to maximum results. At Linden Law Partners, we specialize in quarterbacking all aspects of M&A deals, and we have represented buyers and sellers in hundreds of M&A transactions.

While there are many common threads among the most successful transactions, we recognize the uniqueness and personal attention required for each deal. Contact us to discuss how we can help.

‘Acqui-Hire’ Transactions: Their Place in the M&A Universe

‘Acqui-Hire’ Transactions: Their Place in the M&A Universe

What Is An Acqui-Hire?

The purpose of a typical merger or acquisition is to acquire the customer base and other assets of the target company. However, in certain cases — and in certain industries in particular — companies are acquired exclusively for their labor talent. This type of transaction has come to be known as an “acqui-hire,” and technology companies in Silicon Valley have been utilizing this quasi-hiring process for years. The practice is now also becoming more prevalent in non-tech industries throughout the U.S. 

When Are Acqui-Hires Used?

Hiring a qualified and proven team can be highly competitive. The demand for top talent in the technology sector in particular often dwarfs the supply. As a result, major players like Google, Facebook, Apple, and Amazon have become creative when recruiting and hiring the most highly skilled employees.

In an acqui-hire, companies onboard an already-cohesive team of employees who have experience working in the acquirer’s industry and who have a specialized skillset. An acqui-hired team is often tasked with a particular project or goal within the acquiring company and given extensive autonomy, which can reduce the time and costs of post-acquisition integration. 

How Are Acqui-Hires Structured? 

The target companies of an acqui-hire are often startups that were successful in raising initial funds in an early round of financing but were unable to secure additional funds in later rounds, and therefore are low on cash. These companies may sometimes position the startup for an acqui-hire instead of simply closing their doors.

As a result, and because of the nature of the purchase price structure (discussed below), current investors of the target company will typically receive some return on their investment but do not usually get back more than their original investment. Many acqui-hires: 

  • Are priced on a “per-head” basis. In other words, the majority of the purchase price is allocated to paying for each team member hired in the form of an upfront cash payment, future equity incentives that vest over a period of time (e.g., 3-5 years), or future payments under an employment agreement. The amount allocated per employee can range from a few hundred thousand dollars to $1 million or more. 
  • Result in the winding-down of operations for the target company. Sometimes, the legal structure of the target company remains intact for liability reasons, or sometimes the entire entity may be acquired so that it doesn’t have to manage a separate winding-down process. 

Benefits and Inherent Challenges in Acqui-Hires? 

Acqui-hires can give buyers quick access to top-notch, proven teams through a quicker and more simplified deal structure as compared to a typical M&A transaction. As mentioned above, because of the autonomous nature of the team being acquired, buyers may be able to limit the costs of a complex post-closing integration associated with traditional M&A deals.

From the seller’s perspective, an acqui-hire can often be structured to give their investors some return on investment versus a complete write-off and their employees a better landing than they would have had were the company to have simply shut down. 

On the flip side, acquiring companies in most M&A deals face an uphill climb when it comes to keeping top talent from the acquired company. Despite the financial incentives intended to keep employees with the buyer for a set period of time, many employees nevertheless choose to find other opportunities.

Moreover, after installing the new team, buyers often still have to contend with lingering morale issues and general integration speedbumps. For some employees, the culture change associated with an acqui-hire is too much to overcome, and they will leave the acquiror as soon as they are able.

Finally, there are numerous pre- and post-closing liability considerations for sellers to undertake (and for buyers to diligence with each particular deal) before entering into an acqui-hire, including ensuring that the board undertakes a fair process in approving the deal, ensuring that the company’s creditors will be paid, and identifying and addressing potential tax issues.

Considering An Acqui-Hire? 

Acqui-hire transactions make sense for small companies that have top talent, but perhaps are short on capital. Some companies looking for an innovative edge and an expedited hiring process might find aligned interests with those small companies. The benefits of acquiring a team of proficient employees are many for certain large acquirers, but the prospect of an acqui-hire presents unique considerations that should be addressed and handled by business transaction specialists.

Linden Law Partners has been lead counsel on numerous complex M&A deals. We have helped business owners across a wide variety of industries achieve economic outcomes from high-stakes transactions. Contact us to set up a consultation so we can discuss the options with you and your team. 

© 2021 Linden Law Partners, LLC. All rights reserved.

Post-Closing Considerations for M&A Sellers

Rarely do private company owners sell their companies, pocket all the cash at closing, and ride off into the sunset to never worry about their business again. Selling owners and key employees of acquired private companies almost always both play a crucial post-closing role in the 2-to-5-year period after the initial sale. The buyer (particularly any private equity buyer) will lean heavily on selling owners and existing management to continue operating the business day-to-day post-closing.

This helps the buyer to learn and acclimate to the purchased business. The continued involvement of the selling owners and key management after the closing is usually a condition imposed by buyers to proceed with the transaction. Given this reality, there are some fundamental post-closing management considerations that are pivotal for selling owners to prepare for before the transaction closes. 

Post-Closing Considerations:

Second Bite at the Apple for Sellers 

Many buyers require sellers to “rollover” a percentage of their equity into the buyer’s post-closing entity to incentivize the selling owners to have a “stake in the game” going forward to align their interests toward a lucrative second sale of the business down the road. In private equity, for example, the typical “second bite at the apple” horizon is between 3-5 years.

(For more on private company rollover considerations, see our previous article here). If structured correctly, the rollover equity can provide sellers with additional and potentially significant financial upside on the buyer’s subsequent sale of the business.

Sellers should carefully vet and validate the buyer’s valuation model to ensure the value of their rollover equity is what the buyer says it is as part of negotiating the overall transaction purchase price. Caution should also be taken to ensure the valuation cannot be manipulated after closing or determined based on subjective factors solely at the discretion of the buyer.

In addition, because sellers will only hold a minority stake after the sale and will lack overall control of the business, it is critical to feel comfortable around key provisions in the post-closing governing agreements (like an operating agreement or shareholders’ agreement) that will impact the sellers’ retained equity.

Such items include ensuring the adequacy of anti-dilution rights, equal participation rights on sales or subsequent financings, and other rights that prevent the buyer from taking actions that disproportionately impact the rollover equity of the sellers relative to the buyer’s equity.

Employment Agreements for Sellers

It is common for selling owners to continue in management employee capacities post-closing, which means that employment terms (and often detailed employment agreements) will be expected and important for the buyer and sellers. The stakes in employment agreements can become particularly high if a separation from employment can impact the rollover equity of the seller (or if an employment separation can impact the obligations of the parties related to earnout payments if they are part of the deal).

(For more on earnouts, see our article here). Well-advised selling owners will negotiate for severance on terminations “without cause” or for “good reason” (terms which themselves can mean very different things depending on how negotiated) and look to avoid the ability for the buyer to repurchase their rollover equity.

Buyers, and particularly private equity buyers, will routinely endeavor to negotiate equity repurchase rights based on prices “determined in their subjective discretion” often payable over years with little or no collateral. 

Sellers should and will normally push back on these positions to ensure they will get the full benefit of the value of their rollover equity, whether or not they are employed at the time of the second bite at the apple sale.

Because the equity rights of sellers will be memorialized in an operating or shareholders agreement, there is a substantial interrelationship with the employment agreement that should be identified and properly drafted.

Sellers would be naïve to think buyers will automatically offer up favorable terms to sellers on these aspects of the deal. That is rarely the case and savvy sellers and their advisors should plan to negotiate these terms to obtain mutually fair and sensible outcomes.  

Equity Incentives for Key People

In addition to incentivizing sellers after the sale, most buyers and sellers collaborate on and implement a post-closing equity incentive plan for key employees (which can also include participation by selling owners) to help keep those key employees working for the acquired business. These financial incentives most typically take the form of stock options, LLC profits interests, or restricted stock grants.

Sometimes key employees who are optimistic about the prospects of the business and the opportunity to participate in the second bite sale will inquire about opportunities to invest some of their own cash in the post-closing entity for a class of ownership on par with that of the buyer and the sellers.

Buyers and sellers alike often wait too long in the process to begin to formalize and fully negotiate the post-closing equity incentive plan for key employees (as talented employees will pay attention to these items and will frequently negotiate on them). 

Conclusion 

Selling owners have a lot more to think about than just the price at closing as the general expectation is that they remain with the acquired business after the initial sale, usually with continued skin in the game via rollover equity. The strength and viability of that equity position are often highly dependent on a post-closing employment relationship. Equity incentive arrangements for key employees will also affect the landscape for both buyers and sellers beyond the initial sale.

Linden Law Partners has guided many sellers through these obstacles and opportunities as part of the M&A deal process, always looking for ways to maximize the post-closing success and financial outcomes for sellers. Contact us today to discuss your options if you are evaluating the sale of your business. 

© 2021 Linden Law Partners, LLC. All rights reserved.

The Basics of Representations and Warranties Insurance for M&A

Fundamental Representations and Warranties (R&W) insurance, once reserved for public company and higher-market mergers and acquisitions, is becoming more prevalent in lower middle-market private company M&A transactions.

Recent trends show that Representations and Warranties Insurance, which provides liability coverage for breaches of representations and warranties made by a seller in an M&A deal, is now being used in an estimated 25% of private deals. In this article, we provide an overview of R&W insurance and the potential benefits and risks to both buyers and sellers.

What Does R&W Insurance Cover and What is Excluded?

R&W policies cover certain types of losses or damages incurred by the insured (usually the buyer) arising from a seller’s breach of representations and warranties in the definitive purchase agreement. The policies cover losses above a deductible amount (typically equal to 1.0% of the transaction value) up to the amount of the policy limit (typically equal to 10% of the transaction value).

However, R&W policies do not cover all losses or damages arising from breaches of representations and warranties Standard coverage exceptions include losses or damages arising from, among other things,

(1) known liabilities (such as a known lawsuit or known failure to pay taxes),

(2) purchase price adjustments,

(3) consequential, punitive or exemplary damages,

(4) agreements based on projections or forward-looking statements (i.e., failure to achieve some post-transaction sales or earnout metric), and

(5) breaches of certain “fundamental” representations and warranties (a select category of representations and warranties in every acquisition agreement that are considered so basic or “fundamental” to the deal that a buyer would not do the deal were it known that a fundamental representation and warranty was untrue).

Common examples of fundamental representations include the power of sellers to legally consummate the deal, good standing of the seller entity under the state law of its incorporation, seller’s good title to assets, tax matters, etc.). Other deal-specific issues identified during due diligence could result in additional exclusions from coverage under a R&W policy.

Although sellers will customarily remain responsible for losses not covered by an R&W policy based on the terms of the definitive purchase agreement, buyers may balk at R&W insurance if too many known or unknown material risks are excluded from coverage.

Benefits of R&W Policies to Buyers and Sellers

While the buyer is the policy holder in M&A transactions around 90% the time, both sides can benefit from a R&W insurance policy. Closing “holdback” or “escrow” arrangements can be reduced or eliminated altogether, which means buyers can make more attractive offers to sellers and sellers can receive more of the purchase price at closing (as opposed to sales proceeds otherwise being tied up in escrow or being treated as seller-carry financing for a lengthy post-closing period).

Sellers may also be more willing to make broader representations and warranties with fewer qualifiers (such as materiality and knowledge qualifiers), which could reduce the time spent negotiating and drafting the R&W terms and the related indemnification provisions in the purchase agreement.

Buyers may be able to realize greater coverage and a longer timeframe in which to make claims under an R&W policy than based on traditional seller indemnification obligations (which may be much more limited under the definitive purchase agreement than is afforded by the terms of the R&W policy).

Overall, buyers and sellers alike may be able reduce their legal exposure, allowing the parties to focus less on risk allocation (which is inevitably a time consuming and gritty component of any M&A deal where a R&W policy is not utilized), and to instead focus more on the nuts-and-bolts financial and accounting elements of the deal.

Costs of R&W Warranties Insurance

Premiums for R&W insurance run between 2 and 3% of the policy limit (i.e., the coverage amount). Providers also charge underwriting (due diligence) fees, which can be as high as $50,000. 

To illustrate the costs and coverage of a standard R&W policy, consider an M&A deal with a $100 million sale. Assuming the retention (deductible) equals 1.0% of the purchase price and the coverage limit equals 10% of the purchase price, the buyer is covered for losses that exceed $1.0 million up to a cap of $10 million.

The premium would cost between $200,000 and $300,000. A common arrangement involves the seller paying the deductible and the buyer paying for the premium, although the parties can negotiate other ways to split the costs of the policy, such as splitting the premiums and fees and/or splitting the deductible (in any proportions that are agreeable to the parties).

Steps to Purchase an R&W Policy

Buyers usually approach insurance brokers to obtain a quote for R&W coverage. Several well-known major insurers and brokers, including AIG, Chubb, the Hartford, AON, Lockton and Marsh, currently offer R&W insurance policies. The underwriter will receive a fee for its due diligence process.

In this phase, the insurance provider will likely request detailed information regarding the buyer, the seller, and the transaction. Expect for the insurer and its underwriter to be involved in the due diligence process, and to also be involved in the review of the seller’s disclosure schedules to the definitive purchase agreement. 

Let Us Guide You to a Favorable Outcome

Representations and warranties insurance can provide numerous benefits to the parties, but not every M&A deal is a good fit for an R&W policy. Bear in mind that R&W insurance does not solely benefit buyers in a high-stakes business acquisition; sellers should also pay attention to these policies and weigh the applicable advantages and impacts on ongoing liability following the sale.

Linden Law Partners has been lead counsel on countless M&A deals, yet we recognize how unique each one is. Reach out to discuss how we can provide value to your next transaction.  

 © 2021 Linden Law Partners, LLC. All rights reserved.

Mistakes Sellers Make During the M&A Deal Process

Successful M&A deals don’t just happen by accident. Each M&A transaction has its own complexities and numerous factors must converge to result in a mutually beneficial outcome for both the buyer and seller. Sellers who are willing to critically analyze a deal objectively and possess the gravitas to have tough conversations with buyers stand the best chance of obtaining an optimal outcome for themselves and avoiding some common seller “deal traps” outlined below.

5 Mistakes Sellers Make During the M&A Deal:

1. Mistakenly presuming they have a deal. Many sellers, after getting a high-level, non-binding commitment from a buyer at the right valuation or purchase price may think that the core deal has been settled and all that’s needed is a “standard” purchase agreement. But what many people (who don’t do M&A every day) don’t realize is the cardinal rule that while price matters, deal structure often matters even more.

Many sellers have limited understanding or appreciation of how structure ultimately can significantly affect the price they actually realize in a sale. In the final analysis, the Seller’s realization is all that really matters.

The starting point for an optimal M&A deal structure is a robust letter of intent (LOI) that does more than lay out the purchase price and boilerplate provisions. (Read more about LOIs here).

The more general or formulaic the LOI, the more sellers will have to negotiate when it’s time to document the deal (which is anything but standard) at a heightened cost over a prolonged period, and by then, a seller may be too far along to pull back from the deal or negotiate better terms.

As a general deal rule of thumb – buyers benefit from “less” up front and pulling sellers into the process (buyers almost always have more leverage than sellers after the LOI is signed); sellers most typically benefit from “more” up front and should negotiate hard at the LOI stage.

Saavy sellers also need to understand that the process for closing the sale of their business is fundamentally different than selling or buying the typical business product or service. Hard conversations are often part of the process – either you have them at the beginning, or you have them when you’re in the middle or even the end of the deal (at which point those conversations will only be harder and the stakes even higher).

Unlike with other various other deals, such as schmoozing a new customer, handshakes and cocktails (and an LOI) are just the very beginning, and not even close to the end, for M&A deals.

2. Failing to perform due diligence on the buyer. Too many sellers, particularly in smaller deals, assume potential buyers have the necessary funds and capability to make the purchase and close the transaction when they don’t. When this happens, sellers have sunk time and money into the process with nothing to show for it.

Accordingly, every seller needs to take appropriate steps early in the process to ensure the prospective buyer has the actual capital, resources and experience to close the deal. For many deals, the buyer will also need the acumen and resources to capably integrate the buyer’s and seller’s businesses post-closing. (Learn more on this topic here).

Buyers should be willing and able to provide financial statements, meaningful commitment letters from lenders, credit pre-approvals, references, and a track record of successful investments or purchases in the seller’s industry and market. If a buyer balks at this, continually delays providing this information, or provides sparse, vague, or otherwise inadequate information, it’s a big red flag.

3. Not mentally preparing for the process. There are a few things sellers need to accept before starting the M&A process:

  • The transaction will take longer than expected.
  • It’s common for sellers to experience deal fatigue.
  • There will be costs (tangible and intangible).
  • There will be sometimes be periods characterized by adversarial communications.

M&A deals are marathons, not sprints. This is true no matter how “straightforward” the deal is, or how quickly the buyer claims it and its lawyers can close. The psychological element of these transactions is too often neglected by both sellers and buyers, and in particular, sellers can become inundated in the deal process to the point of conceding on important terms just to get over the finish line.

Understanding the nature of the M&A deal process at the start is the best way for both sides to avoid being overtaken by its highs and lows, and can help sellers stay firm on the critical deal terms that matter most to them. A seller should be ready to be thrust out of its comfort zone if it wants the best deal it can get.

4. Not being willing to walk away from the deal. Every seller needs to have the willingness to walk away from the negotiating table. Demonstrating that you, as the seller, are not afraid to walk away conveys that you have leverage and can help motivate the buyer to move past negotiating roadblocks and close the deal.

In virtually every successful M&A transaction we’ve worked on, at some point during the deal the seller flexed some muscle to get something important and was willing to walk if it didn’t get it (and not unsurprisingly, in almost every instance by demonstrating that willingness to walk it got the deal over the hump to where the seller felt good enough to move forward and close).

Sellers shouldn’t be afraid to ask and legitimate buyers don’t just pick up their chips and go home based on reasonable seller asks or negotiations. It’s a typical part of the process and negotiations.

5. Commoditizing the advisors and legal counsel. A seasoned deal professional that you work with during your M&A deal will provide value beyond merely executing a closing, and each type of professional serves a specific purpose. The worth of having advisors, including attorneys, with proven experience in M&A can’t be overstated. Not hiring advisors that are M&A specialists is kind of like seeing a general practitioner to perform your heart surgery.

It’s not surprising that the financial outlay for this level of expertise may not be insignificant. Cost savings in the short term can seem attractive, and cost is important – to a degree. But in reality, what seem like big fees are often dwarfed by the value of finding more money in the deal, enhancing terms and seeing things that people who don’t do M&A every day won’t see and capture for you.

Put simply, a great M&A advisor is no commodity. The overall value you should realize from their services and counsel will outweigh any relatively immaterial cost-cutting measures in the end.

We Can Be Your M&A Deal Partners

At Linden Law Partners, we specialize in quarterbacking all aspects of M&A deals, and we have represented buyers and sellers in hundreds of M&A transactions. While there are many common threads among the most successful transactions, we recognize the uniqueness and personal attention required for each deal. Contact us to discuss how we can help.

© 2020 Linden Law Partners, LLC. All rights reserved.

Section 1202 and Qualified Small Business Stock

Planning for the most favorable tax treatment on their investment is always a major consideration for investors. Because of a renewed interest in using C corporations as investment vehicles as a result of the reduction to the corporate tax rate to 21% under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, investors have shown a renewed interest in the potential tax benefits under Section 1202 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), making understanding its basics important for corporate founders and CEOs and prospective investors alike.

Section 1202 And Qualified Small Business Stock

Some background: in August of 1993, Section 1202 of the IRC was added to encourage investments in certain small businesses (referred to in the IRC as “qualified business” entities). Section 1202 allowed taxpayers to exclude 50 percent of gains from the sale of Qualified Small Business Stock (QSBS) issued before February 18, 2009.

This amount has changed over the years; now, investors holding QSBS purchased after Sept. 27, 2010 for five years or more may exclude 100 percent of the capital gains on the sale or exchange of the QSBS. The amount of gain excluded is capped at the greater of $10 million or 10 times the taxpayer’s aggregate adjusted basis in the stock.

What is Qualified Small Business Stock (QSBS)?

QSBS is stock of a “qualified small business” within the meaning of the IRC. Generally, a “qualified small business” is a C corporation whose aggregate gross assets do not exceed $50 million before and immediately after the QSBS’s issuance and whose aggregate gross assets have not exceeded the $50 million threshold at any time after August 10, 1999. Further, the stock must be of an active domestic C corporation in addition to the following requirements:

  • The stock must have been purchased on original issuance (and not on the secondary market).
  • The purchaser must have exchanged money, non-stock assets, or services for the QSBS.
  • At least 80 percent of the corporation’s assets must be used in active conduct of a “qualified trade or business”. This must be the case during substantially the entire period in which the investor holds the QSBS stock.
  • Certain trades and businesses, as well as most professional services business, are not qualified trades or businesses, including trades or businesses that operate in the financial, insurance, farming, mining, oil and gas, and hospitality industries, among others.

The QSBS investor is not permitted to be a corporation. The shareholder can be, however, a pass-through entity such as a partnership or LLC.

What’s the Benefit for QSBS Under Section 1202?

If the QSBS holder holds the stock for at least five years, 100 percent of the federal income tax gain from the sale or transfer of the stock can be excluded (as long as the QSBS was purchased after Sept. 27, 2010 and the other requirements touched upon above are met). For those companies that can satisfy the Section 1202 requirements, this extremely favorable tax treatment can be very attractive to investors.

However, because of the potential difficulties in meeting the numerous requirements under Section 1202, companies are advised to carefully review the types of representations and warranties investors may ask them to provide with regard to Section 1202 treatment of their stock.

Holders of QSBS can realize potential tax benefits even if they do not hold the stock for five years. If QSBS is held for more than six months, the holder may be eligible to roll over the capital gains from the sale or transfer of the stock to another qualifying corporation’s QSBS if purchased within 60 days of the sale of the QSBS. This is statutorily established in Section 1045 of the IRC.

Conclusion

The slashing of corporate tax rates due to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 has resulted in a quasi-revival of interest in QSBS tax planning. Section 1202 can be useful in spurring investment in certain startups and smaller companies. However, the numerous requirements and limitations must be carefully considered to determine the feasibility of obtaining, and making any promises on achieving, QSBS tax treatment.

The attorneys  at Linden Law Partners are well-equipped to negotiate and structure investments in a wide variety of startups. Contact us here to discuss your options and see how we can help navigate a win-win solution for your company.

© 2020 Linden Law Partners, LLC. All rights reserved.

Understanding and Structuring Board Observer Rights

Board Observer Rights

Venture capital firms and other equity investors commonly request the right to have an observer attend the board of director meetings of their portfolio companies. A board observer isn’t a director and therefore doesn’t have voting rights, generally doesn’t have a fiduciary obligation to the company or its shareholders, and typically doesn’t have the same right to indemnification to the same extent as actual members of the board of directors.

There is also no statutory or common law right that ensures investors will have the right to participate in board meetings, to have an observer attend board meetings, or to receive the information provided to board members.

Rather, these types of rights and obligations among the company, the investor and the observer are grounded solely in contractual agreements negotiated (or not negotiated) by the parties. Accordingly, there should be some thought and analysis around the creation and negotiation of these rights and obligations.

Investor Considerations

In some situations, a VC firm that is a major investor (i.e., investing over a certain dollar threshold in the financing round) with the right to appoint one or more members to a portfolio company’s board of directors may desire an ‘observer’ to attend board meetings, along with the VC’s director representative, as a way to train a more junior associate in the VC firm and/or to provide administrative support for the director representative (who may be serving on multiple boards).

In other situations, a VC that’s investing a comparably smaller amount than other investors (and who therefore does not have an actual representative member on the board directors) may desire an observer simply to obtain more information about its investment or to be able to provide input on the affairs and strategies of the company.

Regardless of the underlying investor reasons, since investors don’t have board participation rights without these types of specifically negotiated contractual commitments of the company, it’s common for investors to negotiate for them.

Company Considerations

The company will want to consider the reasoning behind the investor’s request, as well as any potential negative impacts of having the influence of an additional person (albeit in a nonvoting capacity) present during the board’s discussions and deliberations.

And practically speaking, the lead investor will want to sign off on any other investor having the right to a board observer. Still, it is typical for a company to give certain major investors board observer rights, subject to certain company-protective provisions.

For example, the company will almost always make this right subject to the major investor maintaining a certain number or percentage of shares of preferred stock purchased at the initial closing of a financing round.

The agreement defining board observer rights will provide that the observer doesn’t have voting or veto rights over matters presented to the board of directors. It’s also standard that an observer be subject to confidentiality and non-disclosure obligations to the company.

Other company protections that are typically considered non-controversial include the right of the company to exclude the board observer from certain discussions and information if the observer’s attendance or access to information could result in a conflict of interest, or if the VC firm holding the observer right has a position in a competitor to the company, etc.

Conclusion

Every investment is unique. Companies and investors alike need experienced and practical legal counsel to structure optimal win-win outcomes. The attorneys at Linden Law Partners have decades of experience representing both companies and investors across all aspects of venture capital and other equity investment transactions. Contact us today to discuss how we can help.

 © 2020 Linden Law Partners, LLC. All rights reserved.

Accredited Vs. Non-accredited Investors: Avoiding The Pitfalls

Accredited Vs. Non-Accredited Investors

When seeking investors, entrepreneurs and business owners may be approached by individuals, including friends and family, who do not qualify as “accredited investors” under securities laws. Depending on where a business is in its lifecycle, accepting funds from these types of individuals may range from appealing to essential, or a business owner may simply desire to include them in the investment opportunity.

However, CEOs and business owners should understand that accepting investments from non-accredited investors is often impractical for a few reasons. Can Non-Accredited Investors Invest in an LLC? We explain the basics below.

Background

Any offering or sale of securities (e.g., shares of stock or LLC membership interests) in the United States is subject to the requirements of the Securities Act of 1933. Under the Securities Act, the offering must be registered with the SEC unless it qualifies for an exemption from registration.

A registration statement is impractical for most private companies due to the onerousness of the required disclosure documentation and the associated expenses. Therefore, most companies typically rely on Rule 506 of Regulation D (Reg D) of the Securities Act, which provides the most commonly used exemptions to registration.

However, Rule 506 provides for heightened disclosure requirements, similar to what is required in a public offering, if you sell securities to non-accredited investors.

What is an Accredited Investor?

Accredited investors are generally high-net-worth individuals or institutions. Accredited investors are normally good for businesses raising capital because they typically have experience making investments in the past, have the financial means to make the investment, and are less likely to raise as many issues or concerns as less experienced or less financially sophisticated investors might.

Under Rule 501 of Regulation D of the Securities Act, an accredited investor is:

  • an individual with a net worth of at least $1 million, not including the value of his or her primary residence;
  • an individual with income exceeding $200,000 in each of the two most recent calendar years or joint income with a spouse exceeding $300,000 for those years and a reasonable expectation of the same income level in the current year;
  • certain qualifying trusts, banks, insurance companies, registered investment companies, business development companies, small business investment companies, employee benefit plans, and tax exempt entities;
  • a director, executive officer, or general partner of the company selling the securities; or
  • an enterprise in which all the equity owners are accredited investors.

On August 26, 2020, the SEC adopted amendments that expand the definition of “accredited investor”. These changes will take effect 60 days following publication in the Federal Register. Once the amendments are implemented, accredited investors will include:

  • Couples meeting the requirements of “spousal equivalents”, who will be permitted to pool their assets for purposes of satisfying the accredited investor joint income or joint net worth thresholds.
  • Individuals holding professional certifications, designations, or other credentials, as designated by the SEC by written order. The SEC has so far designated holders in good standing of Series 7, Series 65, and Series 82 licenses as qualifying individuals.
  • Individuals who meet the definition of a “knowledgeable employee” (as defined in the Investment Advisers Act) of a private investment fund, such as a private equity or venture fund, with respect to investments in that fund.
  • SEC- and state-registered investment advisers, exempt reporting advisers, and rural business investment companies.
  • Indian tribes, governmental bodies, funds, and entities organized under the laws of foreign countries, that own “investments” (as defined in the Investment Company Act) in excess of $5 million and that were not formed for the specific purpose of investing in the offered securities.
  • Any “family office” with at least $5 million in assets under management and its “family clients” (as those terms are defined in the Investment Advisers Act).

The Challenges Presented by Non-accredited Investors

Private companies, in particular startups and other early-stage companies with cash flow constraints, benefit from being able to raise money in reliance on an exemption under the Securities Act in order to avoid the burden and expense of registering the offering with the SEC and state securities commissions.

However, companies selling securities in an offering that includes non-accredited investors must, in order to comply with SEC regulations, provide those investors essentially the same information that would be required under Regulation A or registered offerings, which means the requirement that comprehensive disclosure and offering materials must be provided to investors that includes extensive financial and other company information (similar to what would be required for an IPO to be registered with the SEC).

So, while opening up investments to non-accredited investors such as family and close friends can seem like a good idea to entrepreneurs looking to bolster their early-stage companies’ capital resources, the time, effort, and expense involved in complying with SEC requirements can be cost-prohibitive and, simply, not worth it. 

A Note on Crowdfunding

Since May 16, 2016, the SEC has permitted companies to offer and sell securities through certain crowdfunding platforms under Regulation Crowdfunding. Although accredited investor status is not required, certain requirements must be met to qualify for the crowdfunding exemption, including investment limits based on investor net income and net worth and filing Form C with the SEC (as well as continuing annual reporting requirements).

While the costs of meeting these requirements may steer some startups and early-stage companies away from the crowdfunding exemption, it can be an attractive option for companies seeking to raise smaller amounts from alternative or broader-reaching financing sources, including non-accredited investors.

Contact Us

Linden Law Partners understands the challenges entrepreneurs experience when attempting to raise capital. The legal representation we provide to businesses is thorough and focused; through it all, however, we never lose sight of the ultimate goal, which is to put your company in the best position to succeed and provide you with the advice, strategy and approach to do so. Contact us here or call us at 303-731-0007.

Selecting the Ideal Private Equity Partner: 5 Tips

You’re ready to sell your business or bring on a major investor, have hired a knowledgeable investment banker to manage the process, and now you’re entertaining one or more offers from interested private equity (PE) firms.

Choosing The Right Private Equity Partner:

Choosing the right PE partner is one of the most critical decisions for any founder or CEO, and the relationship will be for the long haul. Before you sign up for the highest valuation offered, we’ve outlined five key considerations for founders and CEOs in choosing the right PE partner for your business.

1. Determine the resources the PE firm can offer your specific business.  In addition to ensuring the PE fund will have appropriate (and accessible) capital available after the closing, the right PE investor will have resources to help your business execute its strategic plan and maximize value.

Look at the gaps you need to fill in your business and flesh out exactly how a particular PE firm is positioned to help you bridge those gaps. For example, do they have a wide-reaching network or industry-specific contacts for developing partnership opportunities or relationships or certain expertise or transaction experience that address your business’s current needs, future plans, and desired cost savings?

You should also understand how they implement their growth strategies. Some PE firms will have more rigid protocols they expect all of their portfolio companies to adhere to, while others will take a more individualized approach on a company-by-company basis. Some PE firms are highly acquisitive, while others focus more on building from within each portfolio company. Analyze how their approach fits with your business.

2. Understand the management style of the PE firm.  Before choosing a PE firm, learn how each potential firm manages their portfolio companies, and whether their management style aligns well with yours. What will their level of involvement be with your business? Do they micromanage? Do they plan on replacing executive management? Or do they take a more hands-off approach? How do they communicate?

To help you assess management style (as well as the many other due diligence items we describe in this article), obtain references for other founders and CEOs who have partnered with the firm, including references of portfolio companies that weren’t successful.

3. Get to know the individual partners you’ll be working with.  While you may be drawn to the overall branding or general approach of a PE firm, you’ll work closely with only one or two partners. Get to know these individuals. Do you like them? Can you envision building a productive long-term working relationship with them? How well do your personalities and management styles mesh?

These are important questions to ask because you’ll be spending a significant amount of time together in the future. If upfront you find there’s poor rapport or your personalities or styles don’t match well, it’s probably a sign to keep looking for a better fit.

4. Evaluate the PE firm’s track record for businesses of your size.  Generally, you’ll want to assess the PE firm’s performance over the short- and long-term, and specifically with respect to businesses of your size.

Some factors to consider include the success of the PE firm’s funds during both strong and weak economic cycles (if they have sufficient history), the fund’s capital resources, whether the firm has experienced high turnover among its partners (related to point 3 above, if you find someone you are excited to work with but you find that partners don’t tend to stay on long-term, that could raise a red flag), and the type and number of transactions the firm has completed in your market-size.

5. Obtain a clear understanding of the fund’s investment horizon and exit strategy.  Make sure you know how long you have to execute your strategic plan. Having an investment horizon that is too short for your business could result in undue pressure to achieve revenue or earnings milestones that are unrealistic. Or, perhaps you’re seeking to remain involved with the business for a longer term, or you envision a quicker exit.

In any case, discussing the investment horizon with each prospective PE partner is needed to determine whether your mutual vision and interests are aligned. Most PE acquisitions where the founders remain involved post-acquisition are “second bite at the apple” opportunities (meaning the founders retain a minority equity stake in the hopes of obtaining a second return on investment with the PE acquirer when it subsequently resells the business or goes public).

Conclusion

Just as important as performing your due diligence on potential PE investors is having a knowledgeable M&A attorney experienced with private equity transactions. Linden Law Partners has years of experience advising businesses and their stakeholders on all aspects of sale transactions to private equity firms. Get in touch with us at 303-731-0007 to discuss your options.

Oliver Luck vs. Vince McMahon: Key Takeaways For Executives/Companies Negotiating Employment Agreements (as published in Forbes)

Oliver Luck Vs. Vince McMahon: Key Takeaways For Executives/Companies Negotiating Employment Agreements (as published in Forbes)


The recently filed Oliver Luck v. Vince McMahon lawsuit is a high-profile case between nationally known businessmen (particularly McMahon), but there are everyday takeaways that can serve any company or executive well when negotiating high-stakes employment contracts. Namely, Luck v. McMahon illustrates how important the “cause” (and often related “good reason”) definitions and their associated payout and recovery provisions are in employment contracts for both companies and executives.

Short Case Overview

On April 16, 2020, Oliver Luck, the former commissioner and CEO of the now defunct XFL professional football league, sued Vince McMahon, the owner of the XFL and chairman and CEO of WWE, for breach of contract. Luck’s employment with the XFL was terminated on April 9, 2020, and the XFL holding company that was the party to the contract has since filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy.

The XFL alleges that Luck’s termination was for cause as a result of:

1. A failure to devote substantially all of Luck’s business time to the XFL following the COVID-19 outbreak.

2. Luck’s gross negligence in permitting the XFL to sign wide receiver Antonio Callaway without informing McMahon, allegedly in violation of XFL’s policy against hiring players with questionable or problematic backgrounds.

3. Luck’s misuse of his company-issued cellphone for personal matters.

Luck, of course, is disputing each of these claims in turn with his own set of facts, arguing that the XFL’s claims were “pretextual and devoid of merit” and that the termination of his contract was wrongful and “without cause.”

Luck seeks damages of $23.8 million, which he is contractually owed if terminated “without cause.” Conversely, Luck is owed little to nothing for a “cause” termination. Notably, Luck also obtained a personal guarantee from McMahon of the XFL’s payment obligations under the contract.

Luck’s contract, along with other executive contracts, was rejected in the XFL’s bankruptcy case. However, because of the personal guarantee from McMahon, Luck can seek recovery directly from McMahon, who is a billionaire.

The Implication Of ‘Cause’ In Executive Employment Contracts

Most executive employment contracts lay out negotiated reasons or occurrences that give the company a right to terminate the executive’s employment for cause. Typically, the termination of an executive’s employment without cause will trigger severance and potentially other payment or benefit obligations. However, a termination with cause typically means the executive receives little to no compensation post-termination.

Therefore, a thoughtfully negotiated and well-drafted definition in employment contracts regarding what is and is not “cause” is critical for both companies and executives. Companies will generally seek more broad and subjective definitions, while savvy executives will attempt to narrow the meaning.

For executives, in particular, terms that are subjective or open-ended, such as “failure to comply with directives ascribed by the board” or “failure to achieve company success as determined in discretion of board,” will make it easier for the company to validly claim a cause termination under nebulous circumstances.

The most well-advised executives with the leverage to command it will often narrow cause to circumstances that would be highly difficult for the company to invoke. For example, limiting cause to “fraud,” “felonious conduct” or some other egregious action that is unlikely to occur provides executives with heightened assurances that if they are terminated for general performance or business reasons, they will still receive their negotiated severance or other termination benefits.

The contract must also set out specified payment obligations for termination scenarios. Virtually any termination, with or without cause, will provide for payment of accrued benefits through the termination date. But other payment types, such as bonuses, accelerated vesting of equity interests and healthcare reimbursements, are highly negotiable.

In employment contracts between founders and acquiring companies in M&A deals (in which, for example, a financial or strategic buyer purchases a startup and employs the founders post-acquisition), the executive/former founder should negotiate for the acceleration of payments owed to the founder as part of the acquisition transaction if they are terminated by the acquiring company without cause after the deal closes.

Examples of these types of accelerated payments may include purchase price earn-outs, promissory notes or vesting of rollover equity.

When Considering A Guarantee Of Payment

Luck was smart to negotiate for a personal guarantee of payment from McMahon, especially given the amount at stake and the business risk Luck was taking with the XFL in lieu of other lucrative and more surefire positions likely available to him.

Executives might consider negotiating for corporate guarantees from parent companies with ample resources in cases where established companies purposefully set up new entities for new business lines (which happens all the time as part of customary corporate legal structuring).

If the contract is with a newly established entity, regardless of the overall financial wherewithal of a larger corporate conglomerate, the risk of actual payout of severance benefits is greater absent a guaranty by a parent or other corporate affiliate with a stronger balance sheet. Given the current economic climate, expect more hotly contested negotiations over personal and corporate-level guarantees in executive employment contracts.

Parting Thoughts

While no contract is so ironclad to be immune from a lawsuit, Luck v. McMahon provides a timely reminder for companies and executives to take a closer look at the scenarios under which their employment contracts can be terminated and the companies’ payment obligations arising from those different scenarios. Given the current economic climate, executive employees should also investigate how to mitigate the financial risk of obtaining separation benefits in the event of their termination without cause.