January 2013 Archives

2013 Changes to California Laws that Affect San Jose Taxpayers

January 31, 2013,

Although 2013 is well under way, taxpayers in San Jose may not be aware of changes to California laws that may affect them. Some of these changes include:

Proposition 30

With all the talk about federal income taxes going up this year, do not forget about the Proposition 30 retroactive increase in California taxes, effective as of January 1, 2012. For taxpayers with taxable income over $250,000, the California maximum rate is now 12.3%. On top of this, there is a 1% mental health surcharge for taxpayers with taxable income over $1,000,000. Together, these taxes give California the highest maximum state tax rate. If you fall under these tax brackets, you may not have paid enough taxes throughout the year, through either withholding or estimated tax payments, to avoid being under-withheld. However, there will be no penalty for the under-withholding so long as you pay the tax due in full by April 15, 2013. The ability to get out of penalties expires on April 15th. An extension to file doesn't extend the payment deadline or the penalty exclusion. A late payment penalty of 5% plus 0.5% per month will be due if the full 2012 liability is not paid in full by April 15th.

Source: Spidell's California Taxletter Volume 34.12, December 1, 2012.

Sales Taxes

As of January 1, 2013, the California state sales and use tax rate increased by 0.25% to 7.5% for four years. Of course, city and county district taxes are added on top of the 7.5%.

Source: Spidell's California Taxletter Volume 34.12, December 1, 2012.

Retirement Contributions

Taxes may be going up in 2013, but dollar limitations on retirement plans will also be higher this year. The maximum 401k contribution has gone up $500 to $17,500, with people born before 1964 able to put in as much as $23,000. The pay-in limitation for defined contribution plans goes up to $51,000, and the pay-in limits for IRAs and Roth IRAs goes up to $5,500, with an extra $1,000 of pay-ins available to those born before 1964.

Source: The Kiplinger Tax Letter, Vol. 87, No. 22 (Oct. 26, 2012).

IRS Mileage Rate

It is important for businesses to be aware of the current standard mileage rate since many use that rate to figure out both their reimbursement amounts and their tax deduction for miles driven in the course of business operations. The IRS has announced the mileage rates for 2013:

• 56.5 cents for business miles (up from 55.5 cents in 2012)
• 24 cents for medical and moving miles (up from 23 cents in 2012)
• 14 cents for charitable miles

California conforms to these amounts.

Source: Spidell's California Taxletter Volume 34.12, December 1, 2012, p. 143.

The information appearing in this article does not constitute legal advice or opinion. Such advice and opinion are provided by the firm only upon engagement with respect to specific factual situations. Specific questions relating to this article should be addressed directly to the author.

Closing Conditions Common in Acquisition Agreements, Part 2

January 22, 2013,

The pace of merger and acquisition activity in Silicon Valley continues unabated, and the satisfaction of conditions to make sure both parties conclude a deal with all loose ends tied up becomes critical to a final closing. In my last blog, I discussed certain standard closing conditions contained in merger and acquisition documentation, particularly the requirement of stockholder approval and the use and impact of dissenters' rights. In this blog, I will cover some of the other commonly used conditions in acquisitions of privately held companies.

Being a technology transfer lawyer, many of my clients' deals focus on the need to retain key employees after the company is sold. For that reason, a key closing condition included in most acquisition agreements requires that certain employees with the acquired company agree to continue working with the company for a period of time after the closing. Often this obligation is structured by requiring the employees to sign employment agreements or consulting agreements with the buyer. Managing this process can be tricky, because employees will want to agree to terms they find preferable (e.g., receiving additional options and higher salary) and some key employees may be reticent to work with a buyer they do not know. In addition, negotiations occur between the key employee and an acquirer before a deal is closed, which is sometimes an awkward process.

Covenants Not to Compete
A corollary to this condition is the buyer's desire to have key employees sign covenants not to compete. Although generally unenforceable in California, these covenants can be enforced where the key employee holds sufficient stock, and has sufficient control, in the acquired company to warrant protection of the buyer's interest after the sale. The covenant must also be for a reasonable time, and limited to a reasonable geographic area. Because of these somewhat vague standards, buyers often want these covenants signed by as many of the key employees/stockholders as they can. Key employees, understandingly, become very apprehensive about signing these documents, because many are not receiving enough money from the deal to be able to afford being shut out of the industry in which they have developed a substantial expertise.

Employee Releases
Where a selling company's shares are closely held, or where a substantial percentage of the shares are held by a small group, a buyer will often want the stockholders to release the company from any claims the stockholders may have. This may present a problem if any selling company stockholder has any claims, or even hard feelings, against the selling company. Requiring them to sign a release provides them great leverage in getting their claims or concerns resolved in their favor.

Material Adverse Impact
Another key closing condition is the absence of any "material adverse impact". It is often defined as an impact to the acquired company that is material and adverse. Helpful, huh? There lies the problem with this condition. Although it behooves parties to objectively define what is both material and adverse, too many times parties want to rely on an "I'll know it when I see it" standard. Using objective standards here is critical, because there is precious little time to use standard dispute resolution proceedings to decide who is right or wrong when you are trying to close a deal.

Regulatory Requirements
Satisfaction of regulatory requirements is another important closing condition. Where publicly-tradable securities are being issued, acceptance of an appropriate registration statement by the SEC is often a condition. For acquired companies with a smaller stockholder group, mature buyers can often get the selling stockholders to agree that shares issued in the acquisition will be registered after the closing. Other regulatory requirements could include bulk sales filings for certain types of deals, and antitrust filings.

Legal Opinions
One of the last closing conditions, which is unfortunately one of the last to be considered, is the infamous legal opinion. This is a letter written by one party's counsel to the other party providing certain legal conclusions, or opinions, about the state of the party and the transaction. Because legal opinions are provided, or rendered, to a non-client, attorneys are very sensitive about their content, and the opinion letter itself is an almost incomprehensible collection of jargon and assumptions. The opinion is also based on factual representations provided by management, and attorneys typically provide, right before the closing, confirmation documents concerning facts on which their opinions are based.

Because every deal is unique, other closing conditions may be present, and some of those discussed above may be absent. In any event, it is important that both attorneys and their clients work toward their completion, so that the closing a business sale can proceed with as little controversy as possible.

The information appearing in this article does not constitute legal advice or opinion. Such advice and opinion are provided by the firm only upon engagement with respect to specific factual situations. Specific questions relating to this article should be addressed directly to the author.

Real Estate Loans, Mezzanine Financing and Intercreditor Agreements: Sometimes Words Mean Something

January 16, 2013,

An investor bought an apartment building in San Jose and the broker wanted to send flowers for the occasion. A large bouquet was delivered to the buyer's office with a note that read, "Rest in Peace."

The buyer was irritated and called the florist to complain. After he had told the florist of the obvious mistake and that he was not pleased, the florist said: "Sir, I'm really sorry for the mistake, but what I'm more concerned about is . . . there is a funeral taking place today, and they have flowers with a note saying, "Congratulations on Your New Apartment!"This amusing joke is a good way of reminding us that both real estate and business deals continue to be closed in the Bay Area. As a banking, real estate and business lawyer representing parties to these transactions, I am very aware, and I expect most readers are as well, that financing continues to be a critical part of making a successful deal. During the robust period prior to 2008, one way parties garnered additional leverage in structuring real estate transactions was to utilize so-called mezzanine financing, in which the collateral securing a junior layer of debt consisted of the ownership interests in the borrower rather than the real estate. When the borrower was a limited liability company, this junior loan collateral could be secured through a pledge of the membership interests the owners held in the borrowing LLC.

The concept of using mezzanine debt to enhance leverage has not gone away. However, recent cases looking at transactions structured several years ago have curtailed the latitude of mezzanine lenders ("Mezz Lender") and improved the position of the senior secured lender ("Mortgage Lender") in the event problems arise after loan closings. If you are a Mortgage Lender holding real estate collateral, this may make it more attractive for you to enter into a transaction involving mezzanine financing. If you are a Mezz Lender or a borrower seeking to obtain and use mezzanine financing, obstacles now exist that were not there - or at least not believed to exist - before the markets collapsed in 2008.

The most significant point to take away from the recent case law is the enormous importance of the intercreditor agreement in multi-party transactions. This includes mezzanine financing discussed here, as well as other arrangements involving multiple creditors. In the cases mentioned below, the courts specifically analyzed the language and terms of the intercreditor agreements executed by the parties in reaching their rulings and, therefore, the exact language drafted into the intercreditor agreement will significantly affect the rights of the parties. If you become involved in a financing using mezzanine debt or a transaction with multiple creditors, close attention should be paid to the intercreditor agreement regardless of your position in the transaction.

Now, we discuss some basics about mezzanine financing and then assess the recent case law. Mezzanine financing provides an opportunity to apply an additional layer of secured debt to a real estate transaction by using the equity in the borrower itself, which are held by the owners. This debt is in addition to the Mortgage Lender's loan, which is secured by a first deed of trust against the subject property. For example, assume an entity acquiring real estate is an LLC, and the Mortgage Lender will loan 65% of appraised value based on its underwriting policies. This amount, however, is insufficient to close the transaction. A layer of mezzanine financing might be obtained by having the owners of the LLC, i.e., its members, pledge their interests in the borrowing LLC to secure additional loans. This financing, secured by entirely separate collateral and often provided by an entirely different lender - the Mezz Lender, reduces the owner/investor funds required to complete the purchase.

The Mortgage Lender, holding real property collateral, and the Mezz Lender typically enter into an intercreditor agreement as well, whereby the mezzanine financing is, among other things, subordinated to the loan held by the Mortgage Lender. But other terms and conditions are also rounded up and placed in the intercreditor agreement, including provisions limiting the remedies of the Mezz Lender while the senior secured loan is in default. One common term in many intercreditor agreements requires the Mezz Lender to cure defaults in the senior secured loan prior to transferring its interest in the borrower through a UCC foreclosure sale of its collateral to a "qualified transferee."

In the event problems develop with the project and defaults occur in the senior secured loan, the ultimate remedy for the Mortgage Lender, at some point, is to commence foreclosure proceedings. When this occurs, and particularly if values have declined, the junior Mezz Lender's strategy for protecting its interest frequently involves taking control of the borrower through a foreclosure sale of the ownership interests, and then placing the borrower in bankruptcy to maintain control and buy time to work out a liquidation that, to the extent possible, increases value at sale and protects the Mezz Lender's interests.

Recent court decisions, including Bank of America, N.A. v. PSW NYC LLC, 918 N.Y.S.2d 396, 2010 N.Y Slip O-p. 51848(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sept. 16, 2010), and U.S. Bank National Association v. RFC CDO 2006-1 Ltd., Case No. 4:11-cv-664, Doc. No. 41 (D.Ariz Dec. 6, 2011), changed the playing field for these strategies by reaching the conclusion that the Mezz Lender is required to cure all defaults, including repaying the entire senior secured loan if that loan has been accelerated or matured, prior to conducting its UCC foreclosure sale. The Mezz Lender also may have to replace guarantors supporting recourse carve outs prior to a foreclosure. The bottom line is that these court decisions, which seem to be generating persuasive force, shift negotiating power in a workout or problem situation to the Mortgage Lender at the expense of the Mezz Lender.

As mentioned, these cases carefully scrutinized the intercreditor agreements, and therefore it will be worthwhile for a party to the transaction to pay close attention to that agreement.

The information appearing in this article does not constitute legal advice or opinion. Such advice and opinion are provided by the firm only upon engagement with respect to specific factual situations. Specific questions relating to this article should be addressed directly to the author.