Closing Conditions or Why Isn't the Future What I Thought It Was, Part 1

September 19, 2012,

Whether an acquisition is in San Jose, Cupertino, San Francisco, or anywhere else in California or the United States, any corporate lawyer will tell you that a buyer will not close a deal unless certain conditions are satisfied. Fortunately, closing conditions contained in mergers and acquisitions documentation have become standardized. Exceptions, however, always arise based on the unique attributes of the transaction, and standard does not always mean simple.

Some merger or acquisition closing conditions are standard and rarely require negotiation. For example, one of the standard closing conditions is that there is no injunction, law, or court order that prevents the transaction from proceeding. Outside of an actual known threat to a transaction, these clauses are rarely negotiated in a private company acquisition transaction.

Another standard closing condition is that the requisite corporate approvals will be secured. Because the respective Board of Directors of the each company will have approved the acquisition agreement, this is usually a noncontroversial item.

Similarly, stockholder approval is a standard condition but it can derail a deal if the company does not approach it carefully. Stockholder approval adds an additional wrinkle: dissenters' rights. These rights allow a stockholder to receive in cash the fair market value of its stockholdings, based on the value of the selling company, absent any change in value arising as a result of the acquisition. To receive this cash payment, the stockholder must vote against the acquisition. It is not sufficient for the stockholder to simply abstain from voting. To enable the stockholder to take advantage of its dissenters' rights, the selling corporation must provide notice of the right to exercise dissenters' rights, and the notice must contain specific provisions.

Why would the corporation want to allow one of its stockholders to have this right? To protect the transaction, that's why. Any stockholder who had the right to exercise its dissenters' rights, but failed to do so, can never attack the validity of the transaction. The only exception to this is if there was a problem with stockholder approval. In essence, dissenters' rights give the stockholder the choice between selling-out or going along with the deal. From the corporation's standpoint, it can feel comfortable that a transaction will proceed since all it has to do is buy-out its disgruntled stockholders.

Or can it? The problem with dissenters is that they have to be paid. If the deal is a cash deal, then the purchase price proceeds can be used to pay off the dissenters. If, however, the acquisition is a merger, where shares are going to be exchanged, the issue is tricky. Recall my discussion some time ago about an acquirer wanting to have working capital in the purchased company so that it can conduct business after the closing. Any payment to a dissenting stockholder will reduce the amount of the seller's working capital (assuming that the buyer will not use its own working capital to pay the dissenter).

The reduction in working capital arising out of a payment to dissenters will lead to a closing condition limiting the number of stockholders which can dissent to the deal. Typically, this number is less than 5% of the stock entitled to vote. Sellers who find themselves faced with such a condition find that a stockholder or stockholders holding a relatively small number of shares have, essentially, a veto right on a transaction. For this reason, executives of selling companies need to review their stockholder lists carefully to determine if there is any likelihood that a stockholder will exercise its dissenters' rights.

In my next blog, I'll discuss some of the other conditions that might crop up in a common acquisition deal.

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.

Property Taxes: Sellers Providing Financing Should Beware of Reassessment on Repossession

September 11, 2012,

As a business and real estate lawyer in San Jose, I have been paying special attention to the recovering real estate market. I have noticed an increase in residential and commercial properties transactions in San Jose, Sunnyvale, and Santa Clara. As much as the real estate market has improved, lenders are still cautious when it comes to providing financing, which has affected some of my business and real estate clients.

When the credit market is tight and financing is harder to obtain, sellers of real property may be more willing to provide seller financing to a buyer in order to sell a property. This is even more common when the seller and the buyer have some pre-existing relationship. When representing the seller, I will protect the seller by securing the loan with a deed of trust against the property so that if the buyer does not make the loan payments, the seller can take back the property. This sounds like a low risk proposition for the seller. However, taking back the property may be worse than it sounds. If the value has gone up since the seller bought it, which is usually the case, there is no way to reinstate the seller's former base-year value for property tax assessment purposes. When the seller sells the property to the buyer, the property is reassessed. When the seller repossesses the property, the property will be reassessed again. Since there is no sales price to determine the value when the property is repossessed, an appraisal must be done. Seller, as the new owner, must report the fair market value of the property to the County. Penalties of up to $20,000 apply for failing to report a change in ownership. In my blog, "New Rules for Business Entities Change of Ownership Reporting for Real Property," I talked about the need to report a change of ownership of an entity that owns real property as well.

So, if you are considering providing financing to a buyer on the sale of your property, you may want to think twice about whether you are comfortable with the remedy of repossessing the property with a new property tax value. It may be worthwhile waiting for a buyer who does not require you to assist with financing.

Continue reading "Property Taxes: Sellers Providing Financing Should Beware of Reassessment on Repossession" »

Property Taxes: California Property Owners Should Consider an Appeal

August 29, 2012,

As a business and real estate attorney in Santa Clara County, I have often heard our Tax Assessor, Larry Stone, talk about how hard his office is working to reappraise properties to make sure the property tax assessment roll is correct. However, I just spoke with a California homeowner who is close to losing her home and is being forced to list it for sale. As we spoke, I looked up her address online and found that her property taxes were based on a value far in excess of the amount her real estate agent has told her she should be able to sell for. This is costing her thousands of dollars per year in extra property taxes.

This conversation came at a time that my own property tax assessments from Santa Clara County have just arrived in the mail, reminding me that I need to reconsider the comparable sales in my area and decide whether it is time to contact the Assessor's Office with the information. When you get that yellow notice in the mail, do not ignore it. Take a close look at the information on the card and see if it is in line with what you think your property is worth. If it is not, you should call the Assessor's Office, provide them with any supporting documentation, and see if you can get the staff to agree with you. If they do not, in Santa Clara County you have until September 17, 2012 to file an appeal. Under Proposition 13, your base-year value (the value when you bought your property) can be increased by no more than 2% per year. However, if the market value has fallen below the adjusted base-year value as of a January 1st lien date, you can get a Proposition 8 assessment which is the lesser of the Prop. 13 adjusted base-year value or the market value. Keep in mind that once you get a Prop. 8 assessment, you are no longer limited to a 2% increase per year. If the value jumps up, your assessment can recover up to the Prop. 13 level at any time. For example, if you buy a home for fair market value of $1 million and the value goes up $50,000 immediately after you buy it, the assessment is limited to a 2% increase over the base-year value, or $1,020,000 (instead of $1,050,000). However, if the value of your property falls to $900,000 the following year, you can get a Prop. 8 assessment of $900,000. The following year, your assessment is not limited to $900,000 plus 2%, but can recover all the way up to the base-year plus 2% per year for each year since the purchase year.

During the appeal process, you must pay the assessed property taxes. Then, if you get the value reduced, you must actually call and ask for your refund check.

Santa Clara County includes the cities of Santa Clara, San Jose, Sunnyvale, Cupertino, Milpitas, Monte Sereno, Palo Alto, Mountain View, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Saratoga, Campbell, Los Gatos, Morgan Hill, and Gilroy.

For information on how to file an appeal, see the Board of Equalization website, there is a video to assist you available at To contact the Santa Clara County Assessor's Office, go to

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.

Your Company Has Just Signed an Acquisition Agreement - Now What?

August 6, 2012,

As a Silicon Valley corporate attorney who often represents the selling company in mergers and acquisitions, I know that a huge amount of effort goes into signing an acquisition agreement. As I have discussed in past blogs, issues from earnouts to preparing exceptions schedules will have turned into countless hours of negotiations, documentation, and late night telephone calls for both the seller and the acquiring company and their corporate lawyers. In the end, the agreement is signed and everyone gets some well-needed sleep, only to wake up to the final sprint to closing.

In this blog, I will discuss what happens when a deal does not close simultaneously with the signing of the acquisition agreement. Similar to a contract for buying a house, many merger and acquisition deals require the buyer and seller to sign an agreement, and then perform additional items before the final closing.

At the same time as the deal team pours over the necessary closing tasks, there is still a business to run. Even though the seller remains in control of the business, the buyer wants to make sure it eventually acquires a company that is in good working order. For this reason, commitments are designed to guide business operations pending the closing.

Many aspects of the "operational covenants," as they are sometimes called, are fairly standard. Material actions, such as entering into major contracts or making substantial capital expenditures, are called out as matters requiring the buyer's consent before proceeding. The parties will negotiate the thresholds that are required for materiality and will typically allow exceptions for activities in the ordinary course of business.

In addition to the operational issues, there are a number of deal-oriented provisions. The first is our old friend the no-shop provision, explained in a prior blog ("Merger and Acquisition Letters of Intent - Binding the Nonbinding," May 30, 2011). These provisions may become more involved than those in a letter of intent, and arguments revolve around, among other things, exceptions for unsolicited offers which a board believes must be accepted to satisfy its fiduciary duties, and the length of time the no-shop restriction will exist.

A buyer will typically want to continue to have access to the seller's books and records. Once the deal is signed, the desire of the buyer to speak directly with the seller's employees and customers increases. Sellers are reticent to allow a buyer to speak directly with the seller's material customers, even if the deal has been publicly announced. To the extent the buyer needs to speak with the seller's customers, the specific customers to whom the buyer can speak are usually specifically negotiated. The buyer will also want to speak directly with the seller's key employees. Negotiations often focus on the buyer's ability to terminate the transaction if certain key employees do not continue with the business.

A key aspect of deal-oriented provisions is the parties' commitments to secure the necessary stockholder and regulatory approvals. As part of the stockholder approval process, the buyer will usually require that the seller's Board of Directors unanimously recommend stockholder approval. Often, voting agreements are signed as part of the acquisition agreement signing to lock-up the votes of the major stockholders.

Regulatory approvals can run the gamut from simple bulk sales notices and escrows (for small, asset-based transactions), to Premerger Notifications to the Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice (for multi-million dollar acquisitions). Timing issues on these matters need to be considered carefully, due to the need to prepare necessary filings and provide appropriate notice.

A critical post-signing activity is the Seller's need to secure consents to the transaction from important suppliers and customers. Often, a seller's material contracts will contain provisions that require the other party to approve a transaction to prevent the contract from being breached. Securing this consent can be a quick formality, or a delay ridden nightmare. It is very important for the seller to determine which contracts require the approval of the other party to the contract, and the process, and time required, to secure the necessary approval. The best approach is for the seller to review all of its materials agreements even before the deal starts, so that the approval process can begin very quickly after the acquisition agreement is signed.

Although signing an acquisition agreement is a giant step forward in any transaction, there can be a number of tasks ahead that must be handled very carefully to ensure the long sought closing actually will occur. An experienced team is essential in this regard

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.

Processing Delays at the California Secretary of State Continue for Business Documents Filings

July 31, 2012,

In the past couple of years, corporations and limited liability companies that were formed or registered in California have had to deal with long delays from the Secretary of State in getting their documents processed. Whether the document that is being filed is a Statement of Information, Certificate of Dissolution or Cancellation, or Articles of Incorporation or Organization, the Secretary of State is taking weeks or even months to process a filing. As a business lawyer in San Jose, I have seen a multitude of problems resulting from such delays.

Statements of Information are experiencing the greatest delays, as the Secretary of State is taking several months to process a filing. This has actually created problems for some businesses that pay the filing fee with a check that contains an expiration or "void-by" date. If the check expires before the Secretary of State is able to process the Statement of Information, the Secretary of State will either reject the Statement or treat the payment as a dishonored payment.

Since many of my San Jose clients are newly formed LLCs, I frequently see these delays cause another type of problem. Very often, my client's bank will require a copy of the LLC's filed Statement of Information before opening a bank account or approving a loan. Because of the significant amount of time that it is taking for the State to process Statements, I often have to work with my client to take advantage of a relationship with the bank and ask the bank to accept a copy of the Statement that the LLC has submitted for filing.

I can avoid this situation in several ways if I am aware of the need to provide a filed copy of a Statement of Information by a certain date.

For a corporation, we can file the Statement of Information online with the Secretary of State and then request a copy of the record (this option is currently not available to LLCs). This avoids the usual queue. In addition, most regional state offices offer the opportunity for a corporation or LLC to pay an expedited service fee for filing a Statement of Information in person at the Secretary of State's Sacramento office. We can email the document to our agent in Sacramento who actually walks it into the Secretary of State and files it on an expedited basis over the counter. The benefit to using the expedited service is that we can receive a filing confirmation or response within a guaranteed time frame (usually 24 hours).

Continue reading "Processing Delays at the California Secretary of State Continue for Business Documents Filings" »

When the Minimum Franchise Tax is Not the Minimum Franchise Tax

July 25, 2012,

Every corporation, limited liability company and limited partnership, that either forms in California or registers to do business in California must pay an annual minimum franchise tax of $800. However, I just read an article in Spidell's California Taxletter that really annoyed me (Volume 34.7, July 1, 2012, pages 75-76). The article, entitled "Midyear switch from S to C corporation means an extra $800" says that when a corporation files two short year returns for one calendar year, each return is subject to the $800 minimum tax even though the corporation is the same entity for civil law purposes. Because it is changing its tax status, it is two different entities for tax purposes and therefore must pay the minimum tax twice in one year. As a corporate and business attorney, I am sensitive to this issue since many of my clients are small businesses or partnerships in San Jose, Santa Clara and other parts of Silicon Valley, and every dollar counts when you are running a small business.

This could be an issue in many midyear circumstances, including:
• When an S corporation loses its S election
• When an LLC switches from single member to multiple member
• When an LLC switches from multiple member to single member
• When a limited partnership changes into a limited liability company
• When 50% of the ownership of a limited partnership or limited liability company changes hands
• When an LLC elects to be taxed as a corporation, or revokes such an election
• If an entity changes accounting periods resulting in two short-period returns

Although this may look reasonable on the surface of one tax return independently, when you look at both returns together this looks like double-dipping to me. If one entity has to file two tax returns for one calendar year, I think the entity should get credit in the second tax return for any minimum tax already paid for that entity for that year. However, with California's ongoing budget crisis, I know this argument will fall on deaf ears. Therefore, I applaud Spidell's California Taxletter for informing tax practitioners of this tax trap. I'm hoping California business owners, as well as out of state owners with businesses registered in California, will read this blog and avoid inadvertently paying double minimum taxes. As a California business lawyer, I will do what I can to structure deals for my clients to avoid this double tax.

Continue reading "When the Minimum Franchise Tax is Not the Minimum Franchise Tax" »

U.S. Market Entry - The Flip-Up

July 17, 2012,

San Jose and Santa Clara are such vibrant places to do business that many foreign companies want to relocate to Silicon Valley. As a corporate lawyer working with start-up companies, I have helped a number of ventures enter the U.S. market, and have worked with companies from Australia, Canada, China, Denmark Finland, India, and Israel, among others.

In past blogs, I have discussed some of the threshold considerations faced by companies leaving their home countries and relocating in the U.S. I have also discussed some of the entity forms that companies can adopt when deciding to access the U.S. market merely to sell their products or services.

Companies that decide that they want to access the private equity markets and managerial and technical talent resident in Silicon Valley often relocate their headquarters here in the U.S. For these companies, a "flip-up" will allow them to grow their company in the U.S. by being in a position to access local capital and hire a sophisticated workforce.

A flip-up is essentially a corporate reorganization. At its simplest, owners of the foreign company will exchange their interests for shares in a U.S. company. When the transaction closes, the foreign company is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the U.S. company, and the U.S. company is owned by the former owners of the foreign company.

A successful flip-up will require coordination among a company's U.S. and foreign tax advisors, legal advisors, and advisors for the foreign company's stockholders.

Flip-ups occurring during the early stage of a company are typically easier to accomplish than late-stage flip-ups. This is because the number of affected stockholders is usually smaller, as is the number of outside relationships that require special attention. If a company is considering a flip-up and a financing transaction, it should flip-up first and then close the financing. Often, U.S. investors will require that a company flip into the U.S. as a condition to a funding transaction.

A related reason for engaging in a flip-up early is that older companies usually have a capital structure and stockholder agreements that can be challenging to manage through a transaction. Companies that have closed numerous financing rounds often are subject to constraints that add complexity to closing. These constraints include stockholder rights enabling particular groups to have veto rights over reorganization transactions, outstanding options, warrants, and other convertible securities, and large numbers of stockholders. In addition, securities laws compliance can become relatively more expensive because the laws of the jurisdiction where the issuer (i.e., the U.S. company) resides, and the laws of the jurisdiction where each of the stockholders reside, must be followed.

On the other hand, new companies may face unique constraints. For example, young foreign companies may have received government grants to help them develop technology and grow their operations. Because these grants often require that the company be owned by citizens of the funding government, the terms of each grant must be reviewed carefully to determine whether the terms of the grant will permit a flip-up.

Whether accomplished when the company is young or more mature, a flip-up's structure needs to be carefully reviewed by experienced tax advisors to minimize or eliminate any tax impacts, particularly on the stockholders. This is particularly important because flip-ups rarely generate cash for any stockholders, and any tax liability would have to be paid out of a stockholder's other resources. Tax advisors should also be consulted in connection with determining where the company's intellectual property should reside for tax purposes after the flip-up is closed.

Flip-ups almost always require the approval of a company's stockholders. This will require the company to review its stockholder approval procedures, especially any voting agreements that might exist, and any relevant law. Likely, there will be minimum notification procedures that must be followed. In addition, disclosure documentation may be required. The cost and time of each of these must be built into the transaction so that the parties have a realistic expectation of the closing schedule.

Flip-ups are one of the best methods for a company that wants to take advantage of U.S. private funding opportunities and enter the U.S. market. The earlier the company can make the decision to reorganize as a U.S. company, the easier the transaction will be for all concerned.

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.

California's Corporate Requirements - Electing and Removing a Director

July 5, 2012,

As a business lawyer representing many closely held corporations, I often see shareholders elect board members without much thought, either because they are family members or employees of the business. The board of directors serves a very important management role for a corporation and the decision of who you put on the board should not be taken lightly. If an elected board member is no longer a good fit for your company, do not wait too long to replace him/her or you could be missing an opportunity to find a board member who will add value to your company.

Electing a Director

In most corporations, the bylaws provide that directors will be elected at each annual shareholders' meeting and will hold office until the next annual shareholder meeting and until their successors are elected and qualified, unless they are removed from the board before that time. Each year when it is time to renew your board, make sure you stop to consider whether the same directors should continue serving the company, or if it is time for some new blood. It is much easier to not re-elect a director, than it is to remove one during his/her term.

Removing a Director

Directors can be removed for cause, which means the director being removed did something wrong. The board can declare a director's seat to be vacant if that director is convicted of a felony or declared incompetent. A director can also be removed for cause by a court order, but the court will require at least 10% of the outstanding shares to petition for removal, and a showing of fraudulent or dishonest acts or gross abuse of authority by the director to be removed.

Shareholders may remove directors without cause if the removal is approved by a majority of the outstanding shares entitled to vote for the election of directors. However, no individual director can be removed over an objection by one or more shareholders who, collectively, have enough votes to elect that director under cumulative voting.

Filling a Vacancy on the Board

Generally, the shareholders are supposed to elect the board of directors. However, depending on how the seat was vacated, either the board itself, or the shareholders, can fill a vacant board seat. If a director dies, is incapacitated, or resigns, the remaining directors can usually appoint a replacement director (unless the corporate documents say otherwise). If a director is removed, the vacancy must be filled by the shareholders unless the corporate documents authorize the board to fill such a vacancy. In the event that a majority of the directors have been appointed by the board, there is a safeguard to make sure the shareholders have the ultimate authority. Holders of 5% or more of the outstanding shares may call a special meeting of the shareholders and elect an entirely new board.

Whether or not your entire board is in place, in order to maintain your corporate liability shield, the corporation must follow the statutory rules regarding regular and special board meetings for the board to make decisions on behalf of the company. The rules for board meetings will be covered in another blog.

Continue reading "California's Corporate Requirements - Electing and Removing a Director" »

U.S. Market Entry - Legal Structures for Foreign Startups

June 13, 2012,

In my last blog concerning market entry into Silicon Valley by foreign companies, I discussed some of the basic issues and tasks surrounding the effort. As an attorney practicing corporate law and representing technology startup companies, I am often asked to assist in designing and implementing the legal structures that enable a foreign-owned company to access the US market.

There are a number of factors that guide a company's decision to enter the US market. First, what is it trying to sell? Second, does the company hope to generate its return on investment through a cash-flow from sales, or by building value and ultimately selling the company or taking it public? Third, does it need funding from US private investors? Let's look at how each of these factors guide entity form.

The first factor focuses on the best method for product distribution. If the company is trying to sell simple, commodity type products using an established distribution network, it may be able to get by with no entity at all. In other words, it can sell its products directly into the US through a distributor or independent sales representative. Even if the product is complex, but does not require a sophisticated domestic marketing, sales, or support organization, an independent sales representative could be used.

Where the product requires more than a sales representative to adequately exploit the US market, the company will need to consider forming some kind of entity. This is where the second factor comes in.

If the foreign company only wants its US company to generate sales and build up revenues for possible distribution to the parent company, and does not expect to use profits to drive expansion, it should explore forming the US company as a pass through entity, such as a limited liability company or partnership. Subject to certain exceptions, this will allow the US entity to avoid income taxes at the entity level. The extent of the overall tax burden, however, to the company as a group will need to be explored with an international tax professional.

If, on the other hand, the US company is expected, among other things, to grow on its own, secure outside funding, or be sold to another company, then a corporation is the preferred entity. A corporation, particularly if incorporated in Delaware, is a well-recognized method of doing business and can be created and organized easily. The US company will also be able to use operational profits to grow without the phantom income issues associated with pass through entities, and can avail its stockholder of beneficial tax treatment if it is later acquired.

Foreign startup companies often outgrow their home market, and look to the US, particularly Silicon Valley, as a beachhead into the US. This is where the third factor comes in. Many of these companies have built their technology, and have generated sales that validate the market for their products. They are stymied in their home countries, however, by the lack of expansion capital and become attracted to the established and sophisticated private investor market in the US. Knowing that investors prefer to invest locally, foreign startup companies soon realize they must relocate their headquarters to the US. The process by which they accomplish this is often referred to as a "flip-up", and will be the subject of a subsequent blog.

Analyzing basic distribution, return on investment, and funding requirements is necessary to determine the best approach to entering the US market.

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.

U.S. Market Entry - Foreign Startups Coming to Silicon Valley

June 5, 2012,

Silicon Valley is a magnet for foreign technology companies seeking to expand their offerings into the US market. As a San Jose-based attorney specializing in corporate law, I have seen an uptick in US-based management talent being solicited by foreign companies to help the companies start up their US operations. When faced with the question of what to do, many of the same issues arise in structuring the US market entry of foreign-owned companies.

The first issue is why the company is coming to the United States in the first place. If the company merely wants to sell widgets, it may be able to make do with a simple contractual relationship with a sales professional or distributor. If, on the other hand, the company wants to access US management talent and venture investors, it might look at reorganizing, or flipping-up, its legal headquarters into the US.

The second issue involves taxes. If the company is a mature company and expects to generate significant revenue from its US operations, there are a number of tax planning opportunities that may enable the company to minimize its international tax burden. Understanding the company's existing structure and its goals, and designing an appropriate corporate and technology ownership and use structure is a necessary task. It can, however, be an expensive undertaking depending on the nature of the company and its products and services.

The third issue involves the need to allocate resources to basic housekeeping. For example, it is surprisingly time consuming for a foreign company to open a simple bank account. This is because an account will require, among other things, a Federal Employer Identification Number, and the IRS will require that an individual provide some form of US-recognized personal tax number. Although this is easy for a US citizen with a social security number, it is more difficult for a company with no US contacts. A foreign company will usually need to coordinate the filing with the IRS to determine precise requirements, and its own foreign agencies to secure the necessary documentation to satisfy IRS requirements.

Another important housekeeping task is assembling the necessary team of advisors. If the foreign company hopes to enter the market through a sales representative or distributor, its group of professional advisors can be limited to an attorney and an accountant. If the entry strategy is more involved, the advisor group will likely extend to international tax professionals and bankers, among others.

The fourth common issue is making sure the foreign company understands the dynamic US business culture, especially here in Silicon Valley, and the rapid swings prompted by the business cycle. Many foreign companies are enamored with the potential market size of the United States, but may not have the stomach for the roller coaster life of a US technology company. Any entrepreneur working with a foreign company must probe beyond the usual discussions to determine the amount of funding and other resources that the foreign company is willing to devote to the effort, and whether that funding will be provided all at once, or dripped over time.

The Silicon Valley area will continue to attract foreign technology companies hoping to establish a beachhead in the US marketplace. In an upcoming blog, I'll discuss the legal structures that are often used in US market entry.

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.

California's Corporate Requirements - Shareholder Meetings

May 29, 2012,

As a corporate lawyer representing small businesses here in San Jose and throughout Silicon Valley, I often need to walk my clients through the process of forming a corporation, whether in California, Delaware, or another state, but also the ongoing requirements of maintaining their corporation. It is important to remember that California law provides limited liability to shareholders, so long as the corporation is treated appropriately. When corporate formalities are not followed, creditors and claimants can "pierce the corporate veil" to allow for a judgment against shareholders for a liability that should only have been an obligation of the corporation. One of the most important corporate formalities is the shareholder meeting.

Every California corporation is required to have an annual meeting of the shareholders, and can have additional 'special' meetings at any other time when properly called. In order to hold a proper meeting, the meeting must be properly called, noticed, and held. This is a general roadmap on how to do that, but any corporation is subject to the specifics of its corporate documents and should only rely on legal counsel familiar with its documents for requirements specific to its company.

When should the annual shareholder meeting be held?
The annual meeting should be held on a date and time that is stated in the bylaws. Recently I began representing a client that controlled multiple different corporations formed by his previous corporate attorney. Each of the corporations had a different annual meeting date, making it much more difficult for the client to remember to hold his meetings on time. We held a special meeting of the shareholders to amend the bylaws of each corporation to have the meetings on the same date, and then held the meetings back to back in his office. In this case, the shareholders and the board of directors were essentially the same people, so we actually noticed and held a joint annual meeting.

What action is required at the annual shareholder meeting?
The only action required to be taken by the shareholders at an annual meeting is the election of the board of directors. Any other proper business may also be acted upon, so long as it was included in the meeting notice.

Required Notice - What should the notice say?
All shareholders who are entitled to vote are entitled to written notice of the annual meeting (and any special meeting). The bylaws cannot override this requirement. However, most of the time, my small business clients with closely held corporations hold their meetings without formal notice, and we just have the shareholders sign a written waiver of the notice requirement at the meeting. Of course, you should not depend on this if there is any hint of a potential disagreement between the shareholders. Otherwise, a disagreeable shareholder could refuse to waive the notice requirement, and delay or block the shareholders from taking any action at the meeting.

The notice to shareholders must include the date, time and place of the meeting, and whether shareholders can attend by telephone or electronic meeting. For annual meetings, or any other meetings where directors will be elected, the notice must also state the names of the persons nominated for the election. Any other matters the board intends to present to the shareholders for any action at an annual meeting must also be stated in the notice. Although at an annual meeting the shareholders may still be able to act on a matter that was not included in the notice, certain matters may require the unanimous vote of the shareholders, including those not attending the meeting, if the shareholders were not given notice of them in advance.

At a special meeting, the shareholders are not allowed to act on business not included in the notice unless all shareholders provide written waiver of notice for that matter. For this reason, if the corporation has any adverse interests among its shareholder, I recommend that a very specific agenda be provided with the notice of any special meeting. The safest method is to provide the actual language of proposals the board will be presenting to the shareholders at the meeting.

In addition to providing notice before the meeting, in California the corporation must provide an annual financial report to the shareholders at least 15 days before the annual meeting, and no later than 120 days after the end of the corporation's fiscal year. However, if the corporation has less than 100 shareholders, this requirement can be waived in the bylaws.

Required Notice - How do you give notice?
You should always check to see what the corporation's bylaws say about notice, but for most corporations, notice can be given by first class mail, in person, or by electronic delivery such as facsimile or e-mail. Notice should go to the address or contact information provided by the shareholder to the corporation. If you do not have an address, or if the electronic notice gets rejected twice, you can mail the notice to the shareholder care of the corporation at its principal executive office, or you can publish it in a local newspaper. In other words, if you cannot find a shareholder you do not have a legal requirement to spend your time looking for them.

The corporation is considered to have provided notice as of the date it mails the notice, or delivers it personally, by fax or electronically. I recommend that the secretary of the corporation sign an affidavit of mailing or electronic transmission for the corporate minute book. I may be able to provide notice and sign the affidavit as the transfer agent for corporations that are my clients.

Required Notice - When should it go out?
Written notice of a shareholder meeting must be given no less than 10 days and no more than 60 days before the scheduled meeting. Corporations will often provide at least 15 days notice so that the annual financial report can be sent to the shareholders at the same time.

Improper Notice
As I mentioned earlier, shareholders can waive the required meeting notice if they did not get notice, or they can waive any problem with the notice they received. If a shareholder does not attend a meeting, they can waive notice in writing either before or after the meeting. If a shareholder shows up at a meeting and does not actually object to the improper notice at the beginning of the meeting, the shareholder is deemed to have waived the notice requirement. However, a shareholder can still object at any time during the meeting if a matter is raised that was not included in the meeting notice. Be very careful about the content of the waiver. Although usually the waiver does not have to include information about what was supposed to be considered at the meeting, certain matters do require a more specific waiver, otherwise unanimous vote of the shareholders may be required on those matters.

Once a company has set a date for its shareholder meeting and either provided proper notice or had the notice requirement waived, the company must now determine who has the right to vote at that meeting, and what votes are required.

Continue reading "California's Corporate Requirements - Shareholder Meetings" »

The Brinker Case: Employers Receive Clarification on Meal and Rest Breaks

May 23, 2012,

As a business litigation attorney in San Jose, I am always concerned when clients are confronted with murky or unclear regulations. For many years, employers have been awaiting clarity on California's confusing meal and rest break laws. There has been uncertainty as to whether employers must force their non-exempt employees to take their meal breaks, or whether the employer meets its obligations by simply providing employees the opportunity to take their breaks. The California Supreme Court very recently provided much needed clarification on this important employment law issue in the case of Brinker Restaurant Corporation v. Superior Court of San Diego County.

The Court also addressed the proper method to calculate the timing of both meal and rest breaks, putting an end to the guessing game of how many breaks must be provided, and when the breaks must be given.

Employers Do Not Need To Police Employees During Meal Breaks
The Court decided that employers, while under a legal duty to provide meal breaks at appropriate intervals, are not obligated to ensure that employees do no work while on their breaks. The employer's obligation is simply to relieve its employees of their work duties, relinquish control over the employee's activities, and permit the employee a reasonable opportunity to take an uninterrupted 30-minute break. Of course, the employer must not impede or discourage the employee from taking the provided break.

Also of great importance was that the Court stated quite clearly that employers are not required to police meal breaks to ensure that no work is performed during the break. In fact, employees are free to work during their meal break, if they decide to do so.

Timing of Meal Breaks
The Court also provided clear guidance on the timing of meal breaks. The first meal break must be provided no later than the end of an employee's fifth hour of work. A second meal period must be provided no later than an employee's 10th hour of work. Meal periods can be scheduled prior to the end of the fifth hour of work, including in the first hour of work, and can occur before the first rest break.

Timing of Rest Breaks
The case also clarified when employees are entitled to rest breaks. Employees must be given one 10-minute rest break for shifts from three and one-half to six hours in length, two 10-minute rest breaks for shifts of more than six and up to 10 hours in length, and three 10-minute rest breaks for shifts more than 10 hours and up to 14 hours in length. Employees who work less than three and one-half hours are not entitled to a rest break. The Court also stated that there is no requirement for an employer to give a rest break before a meal break.

Overall, the business community and employer-side employment attorneys view the Brinker case as a common sense legal opinion that offers clear guidelines for handling employee meal and rest breaks. Furthermore, the case may have the effect of curtailing potential class-action lawsuits against California businesses that, prior to the Court's ruling, could have been accused of meal and rest break violations.

Continue reading "The Brinker Case: Employers Receive Clarification on Meal and Rest Breaks" »

California B Corporations Disclosures

May 4, 2012,

I recently taught a program in San Jose to lawyers concerning California B corporations, a subject I covered in prior blogs. As a corporate lawyer, I have been asked by current and prospective business owners whether this new type of entity was the right choice of entity for them. B corporations were created to enable a for-profit company to include as a criteria in its management decisions its pursuit of a public purpose. The B corporation, however, must disclose its public purpose activities.

California recently created two types of B corporations, a "Benefit Corporation" and a "Flexible Purpose Corporation". Although there are a number of differences between the two, each requires that a company list in its formation documents that it is devoted, among other things, to a public purpose. Each type of B corporation must also discuss its activities directed toward satisfying its public purpose. Each type of B corporation must also post the required disclosure on its website, although financial or proprietary information can be excluded in the website posting, and the company must send the disclosure to its shareholders within 120 days after its fiscal year end. If the disclosure is not posted on its website, a free copy must be made available to anyone, in the case of the Benefit Corporation, or must be made available to anyone through "similar electronic means," in the case of the Flexible Benefit Corporation.

Benefit Corporation Disclosures

The content of the disclosure differs with the type of B corporation. The Benefit Corporation must provide an Annual Benefit Report. In the report, the company must discuss the process and rationale behind choosing the third party standard which it uses to assess performance toward providing a public benefit. The company must also explain how it pursued the benefit, the extent to which the benefit was achieved, and the circumstances that hindered achievement. Last, the company must list the names of all persons owning 5% or more of the Benefit Corporation's outstanding stock.

Flexible Purpose Corporation

The disclosure requirements of a Flexible Purpose Corporation roughly parallel those that exist for publicly held companies. The company must provide a Special Purpose Management Discussion and Analysis. The Special Purpose MD&A must identify and discuss short and long term objectives relative to its special purpose, and any changes made during the prior fiscal year. Among other things, the company must also disclose the material operating and capital expenditures required over the next three years to achieve its purpose.

In addition to the annual Special Purpose MD&A, a Special Purpose Current Report must be disclosed no later than 45 days after certain events have occurred. These events include such things as making or withholding a material operating and capital expenditure for achieving the corporation's purpose, or a determination that the special purpose has been satisfied or should no longer be pursued. Because the law is so new, the extent of the disclosure required is a bit unclear, and best practices are expected to develop that will serve as the basis for a presumption that disclosure is complete.

One "advantage" of the Flexible Purpose Corporation, as opposed to the Benefit Corporation, is that the disclosure can be waived, but it is tricky. The waiver option only exists for corporations with less than 100 holders of record. Holders of 2/3 of the shares of record must waive the disclosure requirements, and the waiver must be provided annually within set time limits. The waiver is also revocable. Disclosure cannot be waived for a Benefit Corporation.

Continue reading "California B Corporations Disclosures" »

New Rules for Business Entities Change of Ownership Reporting for Real Property

April 27, 2012,

As a Silicon Valley business lawyer, I have many clients that are limited liability companies, partnerships, and corporations which own real property in California. It is common knowledge that when property changes hands in California, the property will be reassessed (unless an exception applies). However, people often forget that similar rules apply for business entities like corporations, partnerships and LLCs that own real property, when interests in the business entity change hands. As of January 1, 2012 there are some new rules and some higher penalties regarding reporting a change of ownership or control of real property in California. The required period for reporting has been extended from 45 to 90 days. The maximum penalty is now $5,000 for property eligible for the homeowners' exemption and $20,000 for property not eligible for the homeowners' exemption.

A change of ownership can happen in one of two ways:

1. Change in Control of a Legal Entity: If real property is owned by an entity and any person or entity gains control of that entity through direct or indirect ownership of more than 50% of the voting stock of a corporation or a majority interest in a partnership or LLC, the real property owned by that entity is considered to have undergone a change in ownership and must be reappraised.

2. Cumulative Transfers by Original Co-Owners: If real property is owned by an entity and over time voting stock or ownership interests representing more than 50% of the total interests are transferred by the original co-owners (in one or more transactions), the real property owned by that entity is considered to have undergone a change in ownership and must be reappraised.

There is no change of ownership when the direct or indirect proportional interests of the transferors and transferees do not change.

For legal entity transfers, the Form BOE-100-B Statement of Change in Control and Ownership of Legal Entities must be filed with the Board of Equalization in three circumstances. The personal or legal entity acquiring control of an entity must file when there is a change in control and the legal entity owned California real property on the date of the change. The entity must file when there is a change in control and it owns California real property. An entity must file upon request by the Board of Equalization. Source: Spidell's California Taxletter, Volume 34.2, February 1, 2012

Continue reading "New Rules for Business Entities Change of Ownership Reporting for Real Property" »

Fighting Over Profits - The Earnout, Part 2

April 13, 2012,

Although most of my career as a merger and acquisition and corporate lawyer has been spent in San Jose, issues involving earnouts do not have geographic boundaries. While many companies are acquired for their team or their technology, other companies are acquired because they make money for their stockholders. Earnouts provide an opportunity for a buyer to be assured that the company it has just bought will meet its objectives for the deal.

To construct an earnout that measures a company's success in making money, a tension arises between allowing the selling company to operate on its own, thereby mimicking its performance as it existed before it was sold, and integrating the seller's operations with the buyer. Buyers will want to integrate the seller as quickly as possible, but doing so will prevent the parties from determining how well the seller itself is performing.

The most important issue to determine is how profits will be calculated. As discussed in a previous blog, issues involving the use of GAAP become much more important as more revenue and expense items are measured. A detailed approach to calculating profits will help reduce disputes and provide guidance for the seller's managers to use in maximizing the earnout.

Earnouts constructed to measure profits typically require the seller to operate as a separate division, or even a separate entity. To take advantage of synergies, some operations are centralized with the buyer, such as finance and administration. The first area of dispute involves the manner in which administrative overhead, and the type of overhead, will be charged against the earnout. Outside of textbook ratios, there is no magic number and the result is usually reached through negotiation.

Often sales forces are consolidated, and the allocation of sales-related expenses and commissions can be very difficult, especially when the buyer's existing sales department is leveraged to produce sales for the seller. As with overhead, there are no easy answers and the approaches ultimately used are reached through negotiation.

Because of their complexity, earnout amounts are often disputed. Because of this, care must be taken to create an appropriate dispute resolution mechanism. Regardless of the dispute resolution process used for the acquisition agreement as a whole, arbitrating any earnout disputes has a number of advantages. First, the arbiter, or arbiters, can be specified as having expertise in accounting issues, or even in calculating earnouts. Relevant industry experience can be listed as a necessary attribute. Second, the arbitration can focus solely on determining the arbitration amount. Third, the parties can be required to go through nonbinding mediation. If successful, mediation can avoid the expense of an arbitration proceeding. Fourth, the proceedings can be kept confidential.

Earnouts, especially those based on profits, can be very complex and prone to dispute. Because of this, care must be taken by all parties to create a mechanism that will adequately measure performance while minimizing the opportunity for controversy.

Continue reading "Fighting Over Profits - The Earnout, Part 2" »