Articles Posted in Mergers & Acquisitions

|

Those endless representations and warranties in your acquisition agreement aren’t just for your merger and acquisition lawyer. Ignore them at your own risk.

Mergers and acquisitions in San Jose and elsewhere are a lot more complex than those of the past when deals were closed with a handshake. As acquisition documentation becomes more extensive, companies frequently turn to mergers and acquisitions attorneys to assist them with their transactions. One issue on which an attorney will focus deals with the representations and warranties of a seller.

A seller’s representations and warranties, which are the commitments that a seller will make to a buyer concerning the state of the seller’s business, make up one of the more extensive sections of an acquisition agreement and serve a number of functions. This is because they allocate between the buyer and seller many of the risks existing in the buyer’s business.

Representations allocate risk in a fairly straightforward manner. The seller will make a statement of fact regarding its business. If the seller’s statement is wrong, and the buyer is damaged as a result, the seller will compensate the buyer for any damages the buyer incurs.

An example helps illustrate the point. Let’s say that the seller states that it has paid all of its taxes, a very common representation. After the closing, the business that was sold gets hit with a sales tax audit, and is found to have underpaid its sales taxes. Because the seller’s representation was wrong (i.e., it hadn’t paid all of its taxes), the buyer, all other things being equal, can look to the seller for reimbursement for the amount of the additional sales tax liability.

The situation above describes the simplest form of risk allocation in an acquisition agreement. In this form, the seller bears the risk whether the seller knew there was a problem or not.

Some types of risk allocation shift risk only if the seller knew there was a problem. These representations, sometimes referred to as knowledge-qualified representations, allow a seller to escape liability in a representation if the seller did not know a problem existed.

In our sales tax example above, let’s say that the representation stated that the seller did not know of any nonpayment of taxes. Let’s also say that the seller’s officers were completely unaware that they had failed to pay any sales taxes. In that situation, the seller would not be liable for the sales tax liability.

Because acquisition agreements are prepared by lawyers, the concept of knowledge can mean different things. For example, does knowledge mean the subjective knowledge of the seller’s CEO, or the subjective knowledge of all of the seller’s employees? Does knowledge mean just what is in employees’ memories, or should employees be required to look through their files? If employees are required to look through files, should they also be required to look through other documentation, such as public records and other resources? For these reasons, it is critical that the concept of knowledge be defined so that the seller knows what they have to do to satisfy the representation, and both parties know how the risk is to be allocated.

What if the seller wants to allocate the risk of an item back to the buyer? When a seller makes a representation that he or she knows may not be entirely correct, the seller will disclose an “exception.” The seller provides this disclosure in a schedule commonly attached to acquisition agreements, known as a “disclosure schedule,” or a “schedule of exceptions.” Unless the agreement specifies otherwise, a buyer cannot recover for damages for an item that has been disclosed.

Going back to our sales tax example, if the seller knew there was a problem, the seller would describe the problem in a disclosure schedule. The seller would say something like “Seller underpaid its sales tax liability for the periods 2008 through 2010, which liability seller believes to be between $50,000 and $75,000.” The buyer could not thereafter bring a claim for reimbursement for the later assessed tax liability as a result of the seller’s disclosed exception.

As I mentioned above, representations and warranties, and their accompanying disclosures, are heavily negotiated. One point of contention is whether the risk of an item, even when disclosed, should be allocated to the buyer. Buyers with sufficient leverage will force the seller to remove the disclosed item, or affirmatively accept the risk associated with the item. Another point of contention is what the concept of knowledge means, and whether knowledge can qualify a particular representation. For these reasons, it is critical to spend a lot of time understanding the representations and warranties of any acquisition agreement so that you can understand the risks that may exist for you in a deal.

Continue reading ›

|

Most letters of intent describing acquisitions in Silicon Valley, as elsewhere, will describe the material points of a transaction. Although a properly drafted letter of intent will provide that the business points of the deal are nonbinding, it is difficult in the course of any negotiation to change a business point already agreed upon. As a result, take care to describe those points that are most important to a transaction and to leave others to be negotiated as part of the definitive agreement.

The most important point is obviously the purchase price. This can be expressed, among other ways, as an absolute amount. If the transaction is a merger, the absolute amount is converted into a conversion or exchange rate based on the market value of the acquirer’s stock over a period of time preceding the closing.

It is very unusual for the price to be paid all at once. Typically, the amount ultimately paid will be subject to post-closing adjustments based on issues unrelated to financial performance (often referred to as a holdback) as well as issues related to financial performance or other milestones (often referred to as an earnout). These provisions must be considered very carefully, as they are often a source of litigation. This blog will only discuss the holdback.

Continue reading ›

|

In negotiating a recent acquisition for a client selling a business in Santa Cruz, we were presented with a letter of intent outlining the terms of the transaction. The letter was well-constructed, and contained the material aspects of the deal, all of which were nonbinding. There were, however, a number of terms that were expressly made binding.

There are four binding terms most commonly used in nonbinding letters of intent for acquisitions of privately held companies. The first is that the parties will agree to standard nondisclosure obligations. The second is that the acquirer will be allowed to conduct a diligence investigation of the target. The third is that each party will pay its own fees incurred in connection with the transaction. If the transaction is a stock transaction, there may be some negotiation over whether the target can pay fees, under the theory that a stock deal is a deal among stockholders, rather than the corporation.

The fourth is the most hotly negotiated term – the “no shop” or “exclusivity” provision. The no shop is just as it sounds: the target company agrees not to “shop” itself while the transaction is in process. Acquirers usually demand this term so that their offer is not used by the target to get a better deal, and so that the time and expense they spend in the due diligence and negotiation process is not thwarted by another suitor. An acquirer will also ask that the target company stop any discussions with any other potential acquirer, and notify the acquirer if the target company receives any other acquisition inquiries.

Target companies attempt to insert a number of qualifications and limitations to the no shop clause. First, the target will request a “fiduciary out”. In this exception, the no shop is ineffective where an unsolicited alternate offer must be accepted in order for the target’s board of directors to satisfy its fiduciary duties. Second, the target will attempt to impose strict time deadlines which, if not met, will cause the no shop to expire. The primary deadline will be on the parties entering into a definitive agreement. Other deadlines include the acquirer’s completion of its due diligence investigation, and the closing of the acquisition.

Other binding terms include break-up fees where one party, typically the acquirer, will pay the other party, typically the target, if the acquirer decides not to proceed with the transaction.

As with most deals, the extent of number and type of binding terms in a letter of intent depends on the relative bargaining strength of the parties.

Continue reading ›

|

Any Silicon Valley mergers and acquisitions lawyer helping clients buy and sell high technology companies is invariably provided with a simple letter of intent, happily signed by a couple of companies without input from their tax and legal advisors, and asked to prepare binding documents. In one case, my San Jose business client was not too worried about the lack of detail in the letter because, after all, it was just a “letter of intent”. She was less than happy when I told her that she had actually signed a binding agreement, particularly since very little due diligence had been performed on the target company and a number of ‘minor’ issues that were important to her still required resolution.

A letter of intent (also called “LOI”, or memorandum of understanding, or “MOU”) is usually a short letter that outlines the basic business terms of a deal. Without language expressly stating that the letter is nonbinding, and that no obligations arise except under a definitive agreement, however, that letter you signed may be a legally binding contract. Even with this kind of language, a letter of intent can morph into a binding contract IF the parties conduct themselves as if the target company has been acquired. Announcing a deal (when not otherwise legally required), combining operations before a closing, and similar actions, can create a contract from conduct. With no definitive agreement signed, the letter of intent may be used as evidence to set the terms of the deal.

Why do you want an LOI to be nonbinding? Letters of intent are usually prepared and signed after the initial business proposition and marketing analysis have been performed. They are typically signed before the acquirer has a chance to really investigate the target. This is because neither party will want to conduct an expensive diligence investigation until each is sure they have a deal. If the letter of intent is binding, then the acquiring company may find itself purchasing a lot of problems of which it wasn’t aware when it signed the letter of intent.

Continue reading ›

|

Acquiring a financially troubled company, whether in San Jose, Palo Alto, or New York often requires consideration of the bankruptcy process. If the seller is already in bankruptcy, the buyer must convince the bankruptcy court that it represents the best source of funds to repay existing creditors. If the bankrupt company has attractive technology, there may be other buyers, and the court will typically award that company to the buyer who will pay the most money.

If the seller is not yet in bankruptcy, the parties may decide to purchase the company through a bankruptcy proceeding. If planned properly, the bankruptcy process can provide the buyer with a number of advantages. First, the seller’s assets are purchased free of any liens or other claims (although courts continue to wrestle with allowing subsequent successor liability claims). Second, because the assets are purchased “as-is,” sale documentation is typically shorter than for sales outside of bankruptcy, and stockholder approval is not required.

Planning for purchasing a company through a bankruptcy involves entering into arrangements with the selling company’s creditors and other stakeholders before the bankruptcy filing. As part of these arrangements, a reorganization plan and acquisition agreement may be prepared and agreed to prior to the filing. Once the appropriate pieces are in place, the seller will file for bankruptcy and include the pre-agreed reorganization plan in its bankruptcy documentation. The sale can be completed in a few months barring no other suitors or other unforeseen impediments. Bankruptcy counsel is necessary for both parties to properly shepherd the transaction through the proceedings, and corporate counsel is critical to insure that documentation is accurate and necessary corporate formalities are followed.

Financially troubled companies often provide the opportunity for others to purchase businesses at a relatively lower cost. Reaping the advantages successfully requires balancing the needs of all the business’s stakeholders.

Continue reading ›

|

Technology start-up companies in Silicon Valley exist in a highly dynamic environment, where survival can be crushed by competition from a kid in a garage or a fund partner refusing further investment. As a last gasp, some companies may try to be acquired. Companies which have had to take refuge from their creditors may be able to sell their business through bankruptcy proceedings.

When compared to a standard sale of a business, sales of financially troubled companies require the professional advisors to manage a number of different stakeholders to successfully close a transaction. More so than in standard transactions, professional advisors play an important role in helping a transaction proceed smoothly. Under certain circumstances, their fees may be paid by the buyer or the bankrupt estate.

Most acquisitions of financially troubled companies are structured as an asset purchase. This prevents the acquirer from having to automatically assume liabilities that it doesn’t want. The existing creditors are then left with satisfying their claims out of the proceeds from the sale. Most companies, however, need the products or services of its creditor vendors to survive. In the case of technology companies, these vendors often include technology and hardware suppliers who are core to the company’s business. Irritated suppliers may not want to deal with the company even after its acquisition. Creditors and stockholders of the company may have claims against the company’s board of directors if a company is sold for less than the reasonably equivalent value of its assets. At the same time, key employees of the company, aware of the company’s financial stress, may be looking for alternate opportunities. The importance of these stakeholders, and how they are managed as part of the acquisition, is at the heart of any purchase of a financially troubled company.

Continue reading ›

|

In my last segment, I mentioned a recent deal involving a Northern California company structured as a stock sale. Having tax advisors assist at the early stages helped keep the transaction on track. The next major issue was allocating the risk of business liabilities between the buyer and the seller.

Like any stock purchase transaction, liabilities of the seller stay with the business. This is often a significant disincentive to the buyer, because it must hold an entity that cannot escape its past liabilities. Two mechanisms are commonly used to alleviate the buyer’s risk.

First, a working capital cushion may be created to provide a source of funds to pay the ongoing debts of the business. The amount of the cushion is agreed in the purchase documentation. A portion of the purchase price is then held back at the closing in an escrow. The amount of net assets as of the closing is determined through a post closing audit, and the held back amounts are distributed following the audit to the buyer or seller depending on any difference between the agreed amount and the amount determined under audit.

Continue reading ›

|

In a recent acquisition that I handled for a company in Santa Cruz, the buyer decided to purchase, with cash, the stock of the company rather than its assets. Acquisitions through stock or equity purchases are a common method of buying a company. From an administrative standpoint, equity purchase acquisitions are one of the easiest deal structures to implement.

In an equity purchase acquisition, a company is bought by purchasing all of the ownership interests of that company. If the company is a corporation, a buyer purchases all of the company’s shares of stock from the company’s stockholders. If the company is a limited liability company or partnership, a buyer purchases all the ownership interests of the company from its members, in the case of a limited liability company, or its partners, in the case of a partnership. This discussion will focus on a stock purchase, although the basic issues outlined here are the same when dealing with a limited liability company or partnership.

The administrative benefit of a stock purchase transaction is that ownership changes simply by transferring all of the company’s shares. Contrast this with an asset purchase structure, where each desk, chair and personal computer must be accounted for and sold to the buyer.

Continue reading ›

|

Because acquisition transactions in Silicon Valley move very quickly, it is a good idea to understand the basics of deal structure. Every approach contains trade-offs among a number of different factors, including ease of closing, tax impact, risk preferences, third party involvement, and regulatory issues. This post examines the asset purchase structure.

Asset purchase agreements are used when the buyer does not want to assume any liabilities of the seller, except for those specifically outlined in the agreement (and those from which applicable law does not permit the buyer to escape). This structure is typically used for small owner-operator businesses, such as restaurants, retail establishments, and small service or manufacturing businesses. It can also be used where actual, or a fear of, residual liabilities exist, such as with businesses performing hazardous operations.

In addition to their liability-limiting feature, asset purchase transactions can provide tax benefits to the buyer. For example, some of the assets purchased in the transaction can be depreciated over time.

The tax impact may of the transaction, however, require attention and negotiation. Assets which are not intended for resale may be subject to sales tax. Although the seller is liable for any sales tax in California, parties often negotiate and apportion this liability in sale documentation. Because different types of assets and obligations create different tax obligations, parties are required to agree to an allocation of the assets purchased to particular classes and report the allocations to the taxing authorities.

Special tasks face buyers purchasing a restaurant or a company which principally sells merchandise from stock. In these cases, a buyer, in cooperation with the seller, will make a “bulk sales” notice. If the buyer fails to do so, the buyer may be liable for claims of the purchased company, even if the buyer merely purchased the company’s assets.

Assets can be purchased with cash or stock. If stock is used, securities laws must be complied with, which can increase expense and time to close a sale. If a mixture of cash and stock is used, tax impacts might arise in corporate transactions depending on the relative proportion of each component.

Asset transactions create administrative burdens. All assets must be listed and accounted for. This often requires taking a physical inventory and making adjustments if the inventory predates the closing. If the business has valuable contracts, the contracts need to be reviewed to determine if they can be assigned to the buyer. If not, the other party to the contract may need to consent to the assignment, a potentially time consuming and frustrating process.

Because only assets are being purchased, employees of the purchased business may have to be terminated. Any employees with accrued vacation will have to be paid that vacation. The buyer will then have the option to hire those employees back, or bring in its own employees. For companies with a large number of employees which expect to close facilities after the acquisition, federal and California law may require advance notification to affected employees.

Asset deals provide the best liability limitation for buyers. However, their complexity may render them unwieldy for larger transactions and their use should be explored prior to committing to any sale.

Continue reading ›

|

Finding a buyer for the sale of a business is a lot like dating. Your prospects and your ultimate happiness increases with the number of people you meet. Whether you cruise the bars in San Jose, or schmooze partners at a trade show in San Francisco, building interest in your company is a critical step in finding buyers.

One of the key tools used in building business acquisition interest is a set of documentation often referred to as a “book”. The book will describe the business, the industry, and the potential for growth. It may also include financial statements, projections, and risk factors.

The content of the book must be considered carefully. Financial projections should be accompanied by appropriate disclaimers, and competitive and other risks to the business post-sale should be outlined. If the sales transaction is in the high tens of millions of dollars, language stating that an acquisition could reduce competition or permit other forms of market dominance should be avoided.

Continue reading ›