Funding Business Growth

Funding Business Growth

The attorneys in our emerging businesses practice represent startups and high-growth businesses in raising capital through a variety of means: private placements, angel or venture capital investments, leveraged debt and equity recapitalizations, and mezzanine and commercial bank financing.

We advise our clients on all aspects of the capital raise, including securities compliance and business and tax structuring matters. We also represent a number of capital providers, including angel investors, private equity firms, mezzanine funds, family offices, and commercial banks; this means we understand the risks and rewards inherent to capital raises from every perspective.

Our Services

  • Comparative Analysis of Fundraising Alternatives
    • Equity Raises (Private Placement)
      • Friends + Family
      • Angels
      • VCs
      • Private Equity
      • Strategic Investors
    • Debt Financing and Recapitalizations
    • Franchising
  • Company structuring: growth-company entity structuring; tax planning; maximizing flexibility for future fundraising
  • Pre-fundraising strategy: grooming the company for raising capital; preparation for due diligence review
  • Securities compliance: preparation of disclosure materials and applicable regulatory filings
  • Structuring equity-based employee incentive plans

Our Clients

Our clients range from true “basement startups” to established businesses looking for capital to expand. From formation through growth, we offer representation to truly innovative companies.


People

Steve Barsotti

Managing Director + Chair, Emerging Business

614-462-5458Email
Kacie N. Davis

Director + Chair, Business Transactions + Franchising

614-462-5402Email

Experience

Leading Full-Service Restaurant Concept in Investment from Private Equity

A blank sign outside of a cafe

Lead Counsel to Homage on "Deal of the Year" Investment from Ryan Reynolds' Maximum Effort Investments LLC

Multicolored t shirts folded cylindrically and placed in a line

Lead Counsel to Victoria's Secret in $18M Minority Equity Investment

Lacey undergarments representing Victoria's Secret

Equity Investment Financing for Fast Casual Restaurant Concept

Image of a restaurant patio with the sun shining through two sliding glass doors

Advising Ohio Manufacturer in Investment from Florida Private Equity Firm

Image of a machining tool spinning fast in a factory

Creation of Dual-Rail Industrial Park

Creation of Unique Rail and Truck Intermodal Facility


Publications + Presentations

publication

Latest PPP Guidance Provides More Pieces to the PPP Puzzle

After more than a month without additional guidance from the Treasury or the SBA, new guidance was released on August 4th in the form of Frequently Asked Questions on Loan Forgiveness. Many borrowers have completed their covered periods and spent most or all of their PPP funds at this point. Accordingly, this guidance will be most helpful to those who have elected to use a 24-week covered period or have yet to apply for a PPP loan. If you have spent all of your PPP funds already, take solace in the fact that the SBA has clarified that borrowers may rely on the guidance available at the time of their application. With that out of the way, I have outlined some of the new pieces to the PPP puzzle below.Timing Timeline for Applying for ForgivenessBorrowers must apply for forgiveness within 10 months of the completion of their covered period. PaymentsBorrowers do not need to begin making payments on amounts not forgiven until the forgiveness amount is remitted to the lender by the SBA. Interest accrues on amounts owed during the time between the disbursement of the funds and the SBA’s remittance of the forgiveness amount on any amount that is not forgiven. After the lender receives notice from the SBA of the forgiveness amount, the lender is responsible for notifying the borrower of the forgiveness amount and the date on which the first payment is due. After that, the amount not forgiven must be repaid by the maturity date of the loan. Note that the maturity of the loan is 5 years if the loan was issued after June 5, 2020. For loans issued prior to June 5, the maturity date is 2 years, unless a different arrangement is reached between the lender and the borrower.Payroll Costs Cash v. Accrual BasisAccrual basis is reaffirmed for payroll costs incurred prior to the covered period, but paid during the covered period, and payroll costs incurred during the covered period, but paid by the next payroll date after the covered period. Cash Compensation and CalculationAll forms of cash compensation are includable as payroll costs (subject to the $100k annualized limit). This includes: tips, commissions, bonuses, and hazard pay. In calculating cash compensation to employees, it was not previously clear whether this would include the gross or net amount. The newest guidance clarifies that the gross amount before deductions for taxes, employee benefits payments, and similar payments should be used for calculating cash compensation. Group Health BenefitsAlthough not previously clear, the guidance clarified that forgiveness is not provided for group health payments accelerated from periods outside of a borrower’s covered period. However, those group health benefits payments by borrowers on behalf of employees that were incurred or paid during the covered period are still eligible for forgiveness. Retirement ContributionsAs with group health benefits, forgiveness is not provided for employer contributions for retirement benefits accelerated from periods outside of a borrower’s covered period. However, employer contributions for retirement benefits on behalf of employees that were incurred or paid during the covered period are still eligible for forgiveness. Owner CompensationThe guidance has provided detailed guidance on amounts paid to owners that are eligible for forgiveness for owners of C. Corps, S. Corps, Self-Employed Individuals, General Partners, and LLC Owners. Non-Payroll Costs Alternative Covered PeriodFor payroll costs, borrowers may elect an alternative covered period, beginning on their first payroll date after receiving their funds. However, this is not permitted for non-payroll costs. For non-payroll costs, the covered period is limited to the period beginning on the date of the disbursement of the PPP loan. Cash vs. Accrual BasisAccrual basis is reaffirmed for non-payroll costs incurred prior to the covered period, but paid during the covered period, and non-payroll costs incurred during the covered period, but paid during the next regular billing date after the covered period. Prepayments of Non-Payroll CostsPrepayment of all non-payroll costs (except for mortgage payments) is not prohibited. Unsecured DebtsInterest payments on unsecured debts are not eligible for forgiveness. Forgiveness is limited to interest payments on business mortgages on real or personal property (like auto loans). Renewal of Leases and Refinancing of MortgagesPayments on leases renewed during the covered period or mortgages that were refinanced during the covered period are eligible for forgiveness, so long as the obligation under the original agreement existed prior to February 15, 2020. Prepayments on lease obligations are not expressly prohibited. Transportation CostsPrior to the latest guidance, there was much confusion as to what constituted “transportation costs” as a permitted non-payroll cost. The guidance clarified that “transportation costs” refers to transportation utility fees assessed by state and local governments. Forgiveness Reductions Comparison Period for Seasonal EmployersSeasonal employers are to use the same 12-week period used for calculation of their loan amount as the period used for calculation of any reduction in the amount of loan forgiveness. Employees Making More Than $100kBorrowers are to include those employees who made more than $100,000 in 2019 on their forgiveness applications. Reductions to CompensationFinally, the guidance clarified that only decreases to an employee’s salary or wages are to be counted against a borrower for purposes of reductions to its forgiveness amount, as opposed to all reductions to that employee’s compensation.

publication

Strategies to Maximize Your PPP Loan Funds + Forgiveness

Smart Summary PPP forgiveness is valuable, but there are certain conditions that businesses should take care to avoid.Businesses should be documenting their payments meticulously and planning re-hires strategically to fully realize loan forgiveness.Employers may need to get creative with payroll in order to incentivize employees currently receiving unemployment while meeting their quotas for forgiveness.When the CARES Act passed on March 27, 2020, the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) provided an opportunity for small business owners to receive an injection of cash while their businesses are subject to government-ordered shut downs. Those businesses fortunate enough to receive funds now face a myriad of issues as they spend their PPP funds while also trying to plan for forgiveness to the greatest extent possible. The most pressing issue is one of time. The funds must be spent within 8 weeks of the loan’s funding, yet many businesses are still closed to the public or working with limited revenue potential. To that end, this article provides some FAQs and examples to show how forgiveness works so small business owners can plan accordingly.Forgiveness Like anything else, forgiveness under the PPP comes with conditions. What is the limit on forgiveness? The full principal amount of the loan, plus accrued interest. What expenses can be forgiven? It depends on the total amount spent over the covered period. We’ve prepared a worksheet that helps you understand and calculate all of this, which can be downloaded for free here. Are there restrictions on forgiveness? Yes. 75% of the amount forgiven must be attributable to payroll costs. How can my forgiveness be reduced? There are two ways your total forgiveness amount can be reduced: a reduction in number of employees or a reduction to employees’ salary or wages. Refer to our worksheet for help on your specific situation. If there is a reason my forgiveness amount may be reduced, are there any second chances? Yes. The PPP provides a grace period. If, from February 15 to April 26, 2020, you had: (i) a reduction in the number of FTEs as compared to February 15, 2020; and/or (ii) a reduction in the salary or wages of one or more employees as compared to February 15, 2020, but you eliminated the reduction in FTEs and/or salary or wages by June 30, 2020, then the amount of loan forgiveness will be determined without regard to any reductions.Employment Concerns Once you have your PPP money and a plan in place for forgiveness, it’s time to spend. But many employers are finding it hard to allocate 75% of their spending to payroll when employees have been laid off and are happy collecting employment. With the CARES Act’s additional $600 benefit, employers may need to get creative to compete with the expanded benefits. Options include a one-time “recall” bonus, temporary raises, partial unemployment, or any combination of the three. The best strategy will depend on your recall needs and PPP spend plan. ExamplesTo better understand your options, here are three common scenarios to consider.Company A – No LayoffsOn February 15, 2020, Company A had 10 FTEs. From February 15 – June 30, 2019, Company A had an average of 10 FTEs. Over the 8-week period after receiving loan funds, Company A had an average of 10 FTEs. Result: Company A will have its loan amount entirely forgiven with respect to covered expenditures, provided that at least 75% of the forgiveness amount is attributable to payroll costs. Company B – 60% Layoff with Full FTE Re-Hires Before June 30On February 15, 2020, Company B had 10 FTEs.From February 15 – June 30, 2019, Company B had an average of 10 FTEs. Company B operated on a skeleton crew of 4 FTEs over the 8-week period after the disbursement of the loan funds. Company B hired 6 additional FTEs on June 15, 2020, as their business ramped back up. Normally, Company B’s forgiveness amount would be reduced by 60%, but because Company B eliminated the discrepancy in FTEs before June 30, 2020, the reduction amount is calculated without regard to such reduction. Note in this example that it is unlikely Company B will have spent all of their available funds because they operated on a skeleton crew during the 8-week payment period. Thus, there would likely be some funding remaining which can be repaid or retained as a loan. Result: Company B will have its loan amount entirely forgiven with respect to covered expenditures, provided that at least 75% of the forgiveness amount is attributable to payroll costs. Company C – 100% Layoff with Re-Hires and Bonus IncentivesOn February 15, 2020, Company C had 10 FTEsFrom February 15 – June 30, 2019, Company C had an average of 10 FTEs. Company C was forced to completely shut down operations. To make matters more difficult, most of Company C’s employees make less than $50,000 per year, such that its full-time employees were making more on unemployment than if they returned to work. In order to incentivize employees who would otherwise qualify for continued unemployment, Company C decides to implement temporary raises. It did not bring back any of them until week 6 of the 8-week period, at which point, Company C re-hired all 10 FTEs and gave them temporary raises in an amount equal to the entire loan amount, dispersed evenly among them. Result: Although Company C’s average FTE over the 8-week period was equal to 2.5 FTE, Company C’s loan amount will be entirely forgiven with respect to covered expenditures. This is because Company C eliminated the discrepancy in FTEs before June 30, 2020. Further, all payroll costs, including the incentives, were paid during the 8-week period. What You Should Do Now Document Everything. When you apply for forgiveness, you will need to provide documentation of payroll records over the covered period. Such documentation may include Form 941, state quarterly wage unemployment insurance tax reporting forms, or equivalent payroll processor records that best correspond to the covered period. You must also submit evidence of business rent, business mortgage interest payments on real or personal property, or business utility payments during the covered period if you used loan proceeds for those purposes. Accordingly, you will want to document all expenses with these important categories in mind. Project and Plan. As with Companies A, B, and C above, each borrower will be in a unique situation. You should project your FTEs over the 8-week period against both your designated historical comparison period and February 15, 2020. You will also want to plan how and when funds will be expended with forgiveness in mind. Know the categories of expenses for which forgiveness is permitted and that the expenditures must occur over the 8-week period after you have received the funds. Watch for Reduction Traps and Don’t Forget About Grace. If your projected average of FTEs over the 8-week period is less than your historical comparison period, then you should look for creative ways to receive 100% forgiveness. As long as you can eliminate any discrepancies prior to June 30, 2020, then you may be able to take advantage of the grace period to receive full forgiveness. Work with Your Advisors. Given how quickly everything has developed with the PPP, it is important to take the time to plan for how you will comply with forgiveness requirements. The earlier you bring in your financial and legal advisors, the greater chance you have of making the most of your PPP funds.Danielle Crane is an employment lawyer with Kegler Brown, advising clients on human capital strategies to help navigate the COVID-19 pandemic and prepare for re-opening. She can be reached directly at dcrane@keglerbrown.com or (614) 462-5444.Brendan Feheley is a director and chair of Kegler Brown’s Labor + Employment practice where he is working with business owners and their HR leaders to navigate the COVID-19 pandemic. He can be reached directly at bfeheley@keglerbrown.com or (614) 462-5482.

E-mployment Alert
Newsletter

Crisis Demands Creativity in M+A

Each month, Eric Duffee looks at a different piece of The Anatomy of a Deal – a series of easy-to-digest articles that break down complicated aspects of business transactions – helping you better understand terms + processes that can shape the direction of your business.This piece is a collaboration with Steve Barsotti, a director at Kegler Brown who works with companies on planning and implementing their strategic and operational goals with a focus on capital strategy, deal structuring, and financial problem-solving. Welcome to “The Great Pause.” In this installment of our “Anatomy of the Deal” series, the patient is dealing with some pretty serious sh*t. With the COVID-19 pandemic wreaking havoc on the world economy, conventional mergers and acquisitions have all but ground to a halt (for now) and both buyers and sellers will be looking to non-traditional avenues, including so-called “distressed” transactions, to provide value for both sides There’s no playbook for this situation, and anyone who tells you otherwise is just trying to make you feel better. However, some of our experiences from the Great Recession of 2007-2009 (why do we call these things “Great”?) give us some idea of what the future may hold. 1. Deals will get done, but will require more creativity. By all accounts, private equity still has a mountain of dry powder (read: cash reserves) to deploy. And the reality is that the economic dislocation caused by the Great Pause will create a lot of opportunity on the buy side. For sellers, some sectors will likely continue to see strong valuations, but most will take a hit. The size and survivability of the hit will depend on the length of the pause, but the most credible optimistic prognostications we’ve seen have an economic restart in Q3 and recovery starting in Q4. Of course, most businesses do not have a 3-6 month “time out” built into their budgets or business plans. But business marches forward and value is still being created. So distressed deals, meaning those in which a buyer or new capital source comes in and forces a restructuring of the company’s existing capital stack (and often its creditor mix), may become the new normal. These deals are complex, as they go beyond the typical exercise of maximizing deal value and “fit,” and require careful consideration (and typically negotiation) with many stakeholders. But properly and thoughtfully executed, these deals can provide much-needed stabilization and a positive, viable path forward. Generally, in these deals the seller is not the mythical “willing seller.” Instead, the seller is forced to sell (or recapitalize) under circumstances that are outside of its control. In some cases, the “seller” is not even the business owner, but may be an outside secured creditor. For strategic buyers (with cash), these transactions offer an opportunity to strengthen themselves during challenging times by: growing their product/service offerings; acquiring new talent and technology; and accessing new markets. For sellers, these transactions offer an opportunity for a path forward that can provide some recovery to creditors and existing investors, and sometimes continued participation in upside. It also provides several opportunities: to save the business from a complete liquidation; to potentially provide continued employment for some (or all) employees; to offer protection for customers; and to preserve at least some of the seller’s legacy. 2. Debt financing may be scarce. One important difference between the COVID-19 crisis and the Great Recession is the fact that the lenders themselves were at the source of the previous crisis. You’ll recall that third-party financing wasn’t just scarce during 2008-2009; it was virtually non-existent. In this instance, the banks themselves are much healthier (at least for now). That said, banks tend to be extraordinarily risk-averse and will likely struggle to underwrite deals in the current state of uncertainty. Moreover, banks are likely to be dealing with a rash of defaults and loan workouts in the coming months, which may have an impact on their ability to execute. As such, even if they have the capacity to loan funds, traditional lenders are likely not going to be providing much in the way of funding for the most part. Non-traditional lenders may have more flexibility, but will be facing many of the same issues. It’s also very possible that new private financing sources emerge or existing private funds change their typical investment structure and return models. It’s likely that potential buyers will need to look to their own balance sheets to finance a distressed transaction. Few buyers are likely to have both the financial wherewithal and the stomach to pursue distressed opportunities in this time of great uncertainty. Those that do, however, will find many attractive potential opportunities. Fewer Buyers + Many Needy Sellers + Limited Outside Financing = Lower Purchase Prices. 3. Earnouts and other forms of contingent consideration will become more common. We’ve discussed earnouts in a previous installment, but the term “earnout” simply means a purchase price that is contingent on post-closing events. For example, a buyer may pay $500,000 in cash at closing and the remainder in the form of an earnout in which the buyer pays the seller 10% of post-closing income from the business (usually up to some maximum amount). The typical theory behind earnouts is that they bridge the gap between the expectations of the buyer and the seller. If the seller believes the business can generate $X, but the buyer thinks the business can only generate $Y, the buyer can pay for the business at closing based on its $Y expectation and offer some upside to the seller if $X is actually achieved by the buyer post-closing. While the theory seems benign, as we’ve said before, earnouts are fraught with problems. But in distressed deals, earnouts tend to become more common for a few interrelated reasons: The buyer may be the only realistic “game in town.” When this is the case, the buyer can effectively dictate what it will do. The seller doesn’t have better options. The seller has to sell and has very little leverage to negotiate better terms. Acquisition financing isn’t likely to be readily available, which has the effect of depressing the purchase price. A buyer’s risk tolerance is likely to be much lower given the chaos in the global economy. A seller’s risk tolerance is likely higher because the cost/risk of NOT doing a deal may be higher. A common form of earnout in the distressed context is one in which the entire “cash” portion of the purchase price is used to pay-off or assume the seller’s debt. So, in effect, the seller is selling the business for a cash-free/debt-free purchase price of $0. However, the deal includes an earnout to give the seller a chance to earn something if the buyer is able to experience any success post-closing. In an ideal world, the buyer is happy to pay the earnout because it means that the deal worked to its benefit—though it’s always more complicated than that. We won’t rehash the issues with earnouts here, but it’s important to know that earnouts are more likely to rear their heads in a distressed M+A deal. Given the circumstances, an earnout may actually be helpful to the seller who is otherwise faced with the prospect of handing over the keys with no net return. 4. Deal terms are different than in a typical transaction. We spent the better part of the first year of this series talking about the typical deal terms that come into play in conventional M+A deals. While we don’t throw those entirely out the window, the terms become very different in distressed deals. Why? Well, for one thing, the seller won’t be walking away with a boatload of cash. In many cases, the seller won’t receive anything at all, other than some debt relief. Therefore, the seller is not in a position to provide any economic backstop. Second, even if the seller signs whatever piece of paper the buyer requests, the seller probably has liquidity issues that will make it difficult to collect. In typical M+A deals, we see escrows and holdbacks to provide security for the buyer. Those don’t work anymore when virtually all of the purchase price is being paid to discharge debt owed to third parties. And, as noted above, if the creditor is directly involved in the process, the creditor is going to be requesting certain terms to protect itself through the transaction. And if the creditor is ultimately going to take a haircut to get a deal done, it’s going to be absolutely certain that this compromise doesn’t come back later to bite it. 5. Sometimes a distressed deal isn’t the way to go. While distressed transactions are a potential tool to bail out the seller and to provide a potential growth path for opportunistic buyers, they don’t work for all situations. Here are just a few situations in which a distressed deal may not be practical or advisable: If the universe of creditors (including contingent creditors) is unknowable. If there are so many creditors that it becomes impossible to manage them. If there are creditors that will be difficult to negotiate with, such as governmental authorities or labor unions. If the seller’s assets have more value in liquidation than they would in the operating business. In these cases (and in many others), the better result may be for the seller to undergo a reorganization through bankruptcy, a sale under the supervision of a bankruptcy court, or an orderly liquidation of its assets. We’ll be doing a follow-on article describing how bankruptcy and state receivership processes can provide a vehicle for getting deals done that otherwise would be impossible or economically unviable. 6. They’re not for the unwary. Distressed deals can be a good solution for buyers and sellers, but they raise a whole host of issues that make for many possible traps. Due diligence will be at a premium, particularly because—as noted above—post-closing recourse against the seller will be difficult, if not impossible. But time is not typically on either party’s side during these deals. The business may be deteriorating rapidly and creditors may be circling while the deal is in limbo. Creditors’ patience will be thin because they’ll need to move quickly to secure their position if a liquidation becomes inevitable. In addition, the creditor issues can make for a very difficult dynamic. Missteps could result in the buyer inheriting the very liabilities it sought to avoid. Or, the buyer may find its deal being unwound after the closing. And for sellers, they may end up retaining liabilities that they did not expect. But if done properly, the process should provide for at least some true relief of the seller’s obligations. If the seller’s owners have personally guaranteed any of these debts—or if they’re legally obligated for some of these debts personally—then the seller needs to understand what benefit it’s getting from a deal that doesn’t result in any tangible net benefit to the sellers. While not all distressed deals will result in a full release of the seller’s owners, they should at least get the benefit of reducing their personal obligations. Distressed deals are inherently messy and involve risks. Both sides will need to get comfortable with the risks, and which of those risks cannot be completely erased. However, risk should correlate with return. Cautious buyers may find good opportunities—and beleaguered sellers may gain some relief. The key is to understand the risk landscape and look for creative solutions that, ideally, can create value in a situation where value can sometimes be difficult to see. Next month: The Post-Pandemic Future for M+A Activity Read last month’s piece: ESOPs

The Anatomy of a Deal Newsletter
Newsletter

ESOPs

This month, we take a deeper look at a unique transaction structure: the sale to an Employee Stock Ownership Plan (usually called an ESOP—no, not the guy who wrote all of those fables). As with any other succession strategy, ESOP sales are not right for every business. But for the right type of business, the ESOP sale offers a unique way to strengthen the company’s culture while providing significant tax benefits. A number of great companies have been very successful operating as an ESOP, with the Publix grocery store chain often being cited as the “gold standard” of successful ESOPs. However, there are a number of stories of ESOPs that went bad, due in many cases to a lack of planning and proper analysis on the front-end to ensure that the ESOP would be successful. I’m no expert on ESOPs. So this month, I’ve asked the co-chair of our mergers + acquisitions practice, who has significant experience with ESOP transactions, to share his thoughts. With that, let’s dive right in… 1. What is an ESOP? An ESOP is simply a defined contribution retirement plan that invests primarily in employer stock. In some ways, it is similar to a 401(k) Plan. When an employer company launches an ESOP, it forms a trust that purchases some or all of the employer company’s shares, and then holds these shares in retirement accounts for its employees. Employees share in the employer company’s success or failure through their participation in the ESOP plan. The company buys out employees’ accounts when they retire or leave the company. The ESOP is a qualified non-discriminatory retirement plan governed by The Employer Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) of 1974, and is subject IRS and Department of Labor oversight. There are tax benefits for having such a plan in place, but there are also rules and regulations that must be followed. So, it is critically important to seek professional advice if you’re considering an ESOP. Unfortunately, ESOPs aren’t an option for every company. Generally, only C or S corporations may adopt an ESOP, and certain types of corporations (such as those used for certain professional services businesses) are prohibited as well. Another form of entity, such as a limited liability company, would need to convert to a C corporation or to an S corporation prior to adopting an ESOP. 2. How does a company transition to being ESOP-owned? For most companies, an ESOP provides a succession strategy. The owner(s) of the business sell the stock of the company to an ESOP Trustee in much the same way that an owner would sell stock to an independent third party buyer. However, because the buyer is a qualified plan, there are some special differences and considerations, some of which are described further below. 3. How is the purchase price determined? In a typical third party sale, the purchase price is whatever the buyer and seller agree upon. With an ESOP sale, the same market forces don’t really exist because the ESOP is not an independent third party that seeks to profit from the transaction, nor does the ESOP typically have its own source of capital to fund the transaction. Moreover, ERISA prohibits an ESOP from paying more than “fair market value” for the stock. Consequently, an independent qualified valuation expert performs a valuation of the business and issues a fairness opinion to the ESOP Trustee to rely upon in negotiating “fair market value” for the price and terms related to its purchase of the shares of the company. 4. How is the transaction financed? In most cases, the ESOP transaction is financed through a combination of existing company cash, a traditional bank loan to the company, and seller-financing for the balance of the purchase price in the form of a promissory note that is payable to the selling shareholder(s). The ESOP Trustee, on behalf of the ESOP, is the actual purchaser of the stock, but the company is ultimately obligated to repay both the bank loan and the seller notes (and provides the security for these loans). The transactions required to create this scenario result in an “internal loan” between the ESOP and the company, and an “external loan” between the company and the lender(s). 5. What are the tax benefits of an ESOP? ESOPs are popular for a number of reasons, but for many companies, the unique tax benefits associated with ESOPs are a major motivator. An ESOP offers a tax-efficient, leveraged buy-out vehicle. ESOPs can yield tax benefits to the company, to the selling shareholder(s) and to the company’s employees. While there are several tax benefits, two of the more compelling tax benefits are as follows: ESOP-owned S corporations pay no federal income tax: Yes, you read that right. S corporations themselves pay no federal income tax because they are pass-through entities. Because the ESOP is a qualified, tax-exempt plan for income tax purposes, it doesn’t pay income tax either. So the result is a massive potential tax benefit for 100% ESOP-owned S corporations. And, even if the ESOP owns only part of the stock of the corporation, the percentage owned by the ESOP will be income tax free. For example, if the ESOP owns 50% of the S corporation stock, the 50% owned by the ESOP is income tax free, and the remaining 50% is taxed to its owners in the normal manner. Imagine what you could do if you could legally avoid paying income taxes! Owners of C corporations can rollover sale proceeds in a tax-free manner: If the target company is taxed as a C corporation at the time of sale, the selling shareholders could—provided they meet certain requirements and make an election under Section 1042—rollover their proceeds from the sale into qualified replacement investment property and defer payment of the capital gains taxes resulting from the sale to the ESOP. If the seller retains the qualified replacement property until death, the entire taxable gain could end up being forgiven. Note that these two benefits are available for different types of corporations. However, if the target corporation is a C corporation prior to the ESOP transaction and is eligible to elect S corporation status after the transaction, both of these powerful tax benefits could be achieved. Even for corporations that can’t avail themselves of the benefits of switching from C corporation to S corporation status, the tax benefits may still be significant. Of course, as with any tax issue, there are all kinds of caveats, rules, and restrictions that apply. A good advisor can help determine which tax benefits may be available for your situation. 6. Who controls the company if an ESOP owns the shares? The ESOP is controlled by an ESOP trustee, which is usually an independent corporate trustee that is experienced in these matters. That said, ESOP trustees don’t have the interest or bandwidth to get involved in running the company’s operations day-to-day. So, in most cases, the existing board and management team remain in place after an ESOP transaction. However, note that on certain major transactions, the employees themselves will be able to vote the stock allocated to them through the ESOP. 7. Do I have to sell all of the shares of my company to the ESOP? No, but as noted above, S corp ESOPs don’t get the full tax benefit unless the ESOP owns all of the shares. In addition, some of the other tax benefits require the ESOP to own at least 30% of the shares. However, for some types of companies, a 100% ESOP sale may not be possible, so it may still be worth exploring whether an ESOP can make sense even in those cases. 8. Can I control which employees receive the shares in an ESOP? Generally no, other than restricting participation to full-time employees. The company can prescribe vesting criteria for the stock allocated to a participant, subject to certain restrictions. 9. How and when do the employees receive payment for the shares held in their ESOP? When an employee leaves the ESOP company, he or she will get paid for the vested stock held in his/her account. The payment for the stock is determined by a third party appraisal which ESOP companies must obtain annually from an independent professional valuation company. 10. What are the characteristics of companies that are successful in selling to an ESOP? ESOP-owned companies work best when there is a culture of ownership among the employee base. ESOPs can be powerful tools when all of the employees believe that their efforts to contribute to the company’s growth will directly benefit them at retirement. Certain employee groups can grasp the concept and turn it into better results for the company. In contrast, certain employee groups don’t really understand or value the benefit that ESOPs can provide. In addition, ESOPs only work when the company generates sufficient and steady cash flows to service the debt and to pay out employee share repurchases. For those ESOPs that are 100% owned by an S corporation, the cash flow issues are lessened to some degree by the federal income tax savings. But even for those companies, there may be difficulties in generating the consistent cash flows needed to satisfy these obligations. 11. What are the downsides from selling to an ESOP? While the tax benefits noted above get all of the headlines, the truth is that selling to an ESOP solely to reap the tax rewards is generally a bad idea. First, understand that ESOPs have substantial start-up costs and significant continuing compliance obligations. Transitioning out of an ESOP can be costly and painful as well. So the decision to enter into an ESOP should not be taken lightly. In addition, there are both legal and practical restrictions on how much the ESOP can pay the selling shareholder(s) for the business. If you’re seeking top dollar for the company or require receipt of 100% of the sales proceeds at closing, it’s possible that you’ll have more success selling to a buyer in the open market. Finally, employee ownership can sometimes change the relationship between management and employees. In some ways, this can be a positive dynamic. Employees in an ESOP will have more information about the company’s financial health and will certainly have much more concern for the company’s overall performance. However, employees who don’t have the full picture may become disgruntled if they perceive the stock’s value as too low due to mismanagement of the company, whether rightly or wrongly. 12. How do I determine if an ESOP is right for my company? The first step is to have a discussion with an experienced ESOP advisor who can help you understand the pros and cons of ESOP ownership for your business, particularly in light of your company’s unique culture and the business owner’s goals. The next step is to perform a deep-dive into the financials (known as a feasibility analysis) to determine whether an ESOP is even economically feasible given the cash requirements noted above. --- There’s obviously a lot more to ESOPs than what we can cover here. The key takeaway: ESOPs don’t work for every business, but depending on the company’s circumstances and the owner’s goals, they could be a great solution to providing shareholders with an exit, continuity and a platform for future growth. Next month: Crisis Demands Creativity in M+A Read last month’s piece: Alternative Transaction Structures

The Anatomy of a Deal Newsletter
Newsletter

Alternative Transaction Structures

Each month, Eric Duffee looks at a different piece of The Anatomy of a Deal – a series of easy-to-digest articles that break down complicated aspects of business transactions – helping you better understand terms + processes that can shape the direction of your business. Here in Anatomy of a Deal, we often focus on just one type of transaction structure: the 100% buyout. It’s a (relatively) simple, common structure that works for a number of businesses. However, it’s far from the only strategy available. So this month, we’d like to introduce you to some of the other transaction structures that might work for your business. However, keep in mind that most of these assume a more mature business with existing actual value. 1. Majority Acquisition This structure mimics the 100% buyout but with a twist: the sellers (or some subset of sellers) retain a portion of the business after the closing. While the sellers give up control to the buyer, the sellers get the proverbial “second bite at the apple” by participating in the post-closing success (or failure) of the operation. This structure is very common when there’s a private equity buyer (i.e., a buyer who is in the business of buying businesses, building them up, and reselling them in the next 3-8 years). Most private equity buyers need the sellers’ management team to remain in place. This structure does two important things for the private equity buyer: (1) it aligns the interests of the management team with those of the private equity buyer post-closing, and (2) it validates the valuation that the private equity buyer is assigning to the company. If the sellers are unwilling to re-invest a portion of their sale proceeds in the transaction, that may be a telltale sign to the private equity buyer that the sellers’ management team doesn’t believe in the valuation that the private equity buyer has assigned to the business. There are some unique considerations that need to be addressed in this type of structure. First, in most cases, the sellers who will “roll-over” their equity participation into the buyer post-closing will want to be sure that they can do so on a tax-deferred basis. Otherwise, they’ll pay tax on 100% of the value of their pre-closing ownership, but they’re only receiving cash proceeds for the portion that is not rolled over into the buyer. Most sellers don’t love the idea of getting a tax bill at a time when they haven’t received a commensurate amount of cash with which to pay the tax. Hard-hitting analysis, I know. Second, the sellers – who likely had at least some significant degree of control over the business’ operations prior to closing – now must adjust to a minority position in the company. We use a variety of minority-protection tools to help provide some protection to the rollover sellers: protective covenants (e.g., things that the buyer can’t do without some consent of the sellers), employment agreements with severance provisions, etc. While these minority tools are helpful, the buyer’s expectation is that it gets to run the business largely as it sees fit after the closing. So there is some inherent risk in these transactions even if we are successful in using these tools. While some sellers may prefer the idea of simply cashing out and walking away, the majority acquisition can in many cases yield even greater total value for the sellers. In the case of a private equity buyer, many of them will be acquiring the business with the idea of “bolting on” additional businesses in the same industry and also helping to build operational efficiencies and synergies to generate additional value. In some cases, we’ve actually seen the sellers make more money on the subsequent minority exit than they received on the initial majority transaction. However, they’re also taking the investment risk that the business doesn’t tank post-closing, which is entirely possible when the buyer is using significant debt leverage to finance the transaction (and later transactions), as is very often the case. In summary, the majority acquisition presents some unique benefits, but it’s not right for every seller. Before proceeding with such a transaction, you’ll want to consider your personal goals (cash-out and walk away vs. stay involved), your appetite for risk, your comfort level with the potential partner and its plans for the business, and the potential partner’s history in operating – and successfully exiting – similar businesses. 2. Minority Acquisition Many sellers are surprised to learn that there are investment funds that will actually take a minority position in the business. This structure allows the seller to cash out a portion of the business while retaining control.* * Well, you won’t really have total control. The investor is going to demand the same types of minority rights as described above plus more, and they’ll have more success in getting much more robust minority rights. Otherwise, they simply won’t invest. That means you’ll likely be saddled with a number of restrictions on what you can and can’t do without the investor’s prior consent. Moreover, the investor will probably require some form of preferred return, which is usually in the form of a “coupon” on their investment (i.e., they get a 5% to 10% return on their invested capital before the other owners get anything out of the business). Perhaps even more significantly, the investor is going to demand some exit rights at some point in time (typically 5 years, but could be as long as 10 years). This is often accomplished by giving the investor an ability to force a sale of the entire company or giving the investor a “put right” that forces the company to buy back the investor’s equity interest. The latter seems more benign, but unless the company has huge stores of cash available, the put right effectively forces the company to find a new debt/equity partner to provide the capital needed to fund the purchase, or sell the company. Here again, the minority acquisition structure is a potentially useful alternative, but you must know your potential partner very well and have a strong level of trust and confidence in their plans and outlook for the business. You also need to assess the non-monetary value they can bring to the table and their historical track record. Picking the right partner can be a huge win for both sides; picking the wrong partner can be a total disaster. 3. Debt-Financed Recapitalization The debt-financed recapitalization is a classic way to “take some chips off of the table” while retaining ownership and control of the business. In this case, you use the current value of the company to borrow from a lender (often a traditional bank, but could be a less traditional financing source) and put at least a portion of the loan proceeds in the owners’ pockets, by way of a dividend or by a purchase of their ownership in the company. The debt-financed recapitalization has many of the benefits of the minority acquisition, but avoids the forced sale or put right – though failure to pay back the loan could put you in the same position. In many cases, the interest rate may also be lower than the “coupon” that you would pay to the investor in the minority acquisition. On the flip side, you now have a whole host of loan covenants that are similarly restrictive on the operations of the business. More significantly, you’ll have periodic loan payments that must be made, rather than merely the accruing return that gets paid only if and when the company is in position to distribute cash to its owners. These near-term loan payments could have a very significant impact on the company’s growth plans. For many business owners, their retirement and long-term wealth strategy is heavily dependent upon the business’ performance. The debt-financed recapitalization is an option worth considering for owners who want to diversify their risk profile, but the strategy requires a significant amount of financial analysis to ensure that the business is able to satisfy its debt service obligations without hamstringing the business’ future growth and success. Keep in mind also that many lenders may be more rigid in making credit decisions than some outside investors might be in making investment decisions, so this option may not be available for some businesses. 4. Joint Venture The joint venture takes on a number of different forms, but at its most basic level, it’s simply an agreement among multiple individuals or companies to engage in a common activity for shared profit or loss. While the joint venture comes in nearly an endless number of different flavors, the unique benefit of the joint venture is that it allows the participants to continue to own and control their own business and only share the portion of the business and/or specific project covered by the joint venture. For example, if Skywalker Corp. makes Jedi lightsabers and X-wing fighters, and Palpatine, Inc. makes Sith lightsabers and TIE fighters, Skywalker and Palpatine could agree to enter into a joint venture to make and sell all lightsabers without involving their existing X-wing and TIE fighter businesses. In addition, the participants in the joint venture have more leeway to define the extent and duration of their relationship. For example, they could establish a joint venture where the lightsaber business continues only for 3 years. At that point, they either agree to renew or to “simply” walk away and go back to what they were doing before the joint venture. While this almost infinite amount of flexibility gives the participants a great deal of leeway to establish a relationship that works for them, the flip side is that there are enough questions and issues to work through to fill an entire galaxy. For example, during the joint venture, how will decisions be made? What happens if they don’t agree? Who’s responsible for bringing what to the joint venture? After the joint venture ends, it’s easy to say both participants can simply resume what they were doing, but it’s an entirely different question as to how exactly they do that. What if one of them had been sharing the other’s facilities? How do we deal with the confidential information that was previously shared? Who owns the customers that the joint venture served? So the joint venture is a flexible and potentially compelling option, but joint ventures should be approached with great care at the outset to ensure that as many of these potential issues are addressed before the joint venture starts operating. If you enter into the joint venture without careful planning at the outset, you’ll be saying “I have a bad feeling about this” in no time. And we hope you enjoyed the timely pop culture references for which Anatomy of a Deal has become so well-known. 5. Sale to ESOP This one deserves its own topic entirely – and will get one! In short, the sale to an ESOP is an alternative for certain sellers to exit and provides a willing buyer available to take ownership: specifically, a special type of employee benefit plan wherein the company’s employees become the owners of the business. ESOPs offer a number of very unique advantages, but they also require the right company and culture. Sometimes people think of ESOPs as a back-up plan to find liquidity for the owner when no one else is willing to buy the business. This type of thinking is extremely dangerous. And with that, we’ll leave it there so that you’ll be eagerly awaiting our next episode. Next month: ESOPs Read last month’s piece : Interactions with Third Parties

The Anatomy of a Deal Newsletter
Newsletter

Interactions with Third Parties

Each month, Eric Duffee looks at a different piece of The Anatomy of a Deal – a series of easy-to-digest articles that break down complicated aspects of business transactions – helping you better understand terms + processes that can shape the direction of your business. Sometimes the biggest risk to your deal is someone who isn’t even a part of the deal. Because businesses have a life of their own, they touch a number of different people who, frankly, don’t give a damn whether you get your deal done or not. Nonetheless, they may have the ability to hold up your deal for a number of different reasons. That’s a recipe for disaster. Some of the common third parties who may be involved with your deal include the following: Customers and vendors – Sometimes your customers or vendors have certain contractual consent rights that may impact your ability to complete the transaction without their approval. Or, if those contracts don’t exist or can be easily terminated, they could simply refuse to go along with the deal if they don’t like it. Employees – Sometimes the buyer won’t care whether it keeps the employees, but in most cases the buyer wants to ensure that at least the key employees remain. Landlords – Many leases require the consent of the landlord in the event of a transaction. Governmental agencies – Sometimes the deal requires approval from some governmental authority, whose motivations may be much different from yours. At best, each of these third parties may require a significant investment of time and effort to get them comfortable with the deal when you’d rather be focusing on executing the deal and integrating the business. At worst, these third parties may use your deal as a convenient opportunity to renegotiate their own deals with you, using your potential transaction as a bargaining chip. For example, several years ago we were working on a transaction for a Fortune 100 client that was selling a small business unit to another similarly large buyer. The landlord for one of the small facilities (rental rate was about $2,000 per month) was threatening to withhold consent unless the seller (a company with revenues of about $100 billion) would continue to guarantee the lease even after the buyer took over. Why? Because the buyer was only a $70 billion company. As such, the landlord was able to use its contractual consent right to force concessions that it really didn’t deserve. In addition, once you start engaging with these third parties the chances of keeping the deal negotiations under wraps will erode quickly. Loose lips sink ships. So what can you do? We’ve yet to see a profitable business that doesn’t involve multiple third parties, so you’ll need to figure out how to deal with them. 1. Limit the number of third-party interactions on the front end You can’t avoid all third-party interactions, but you can at least avoid handing them the gun to shoot you with. Many third-party consent requirements can be avoided by being careful when negotiating contracts with customers and vendors to limit consent requirements as part of a sale transaction. In addition, while you may have a good working relationship with your customers and vendors on a handshake basis, it may be wise to button up all key terms in written contracts that avoid the need to go back to these customers and vendors later on as part of a transaction. 2. Have a strategy for how and when to approach third parties. When you can’t avoid a third party, consider: Which third parties to approach – This is partially a function of your legal obligations (e.g., contracts that require consent of the third party) but also a function of the need to preserve continuity of the business relationship after closing. When to approach them – Usually, you want to avoid engaging with third parties until fairly far down the road of the deal negotiations so as to avoid an uncomfortable conversation with those third parties if the deal doesn’t go through. On the flip side, if you wait too long, you might find that these third parties are the only things holding up the deal. And, if they sense that they are the last missing piece to your deal, they might use this leverage to extract a pound of flesh. Who should approach them – There are a couple of dimensions to this question. The most obvious is to identify which of the seller’s employees have the best relationship with the third party…assuming those employees are excited about the deal and staying with the organization after closing. However, another consideration is whether and when to involve the potential acquirer in any of those discussions. If the buyer will be involved, the seller needs to be very comfortable about the state of the deal as well as its relationship with the customer/vendor, employee, etc. Otherwise, the seller may actually be introducing its customer/vendor or employee relationship to a potential competitor. What do you say – The answer, of course, is different for every deal and every third party. However, you’ll want to think about presenting the transaction from the vantage point of the third party: why is this good for them and/or why won’t this deal negatively impact them? If the deal presents an opportunity to expand the relationship, play that up. Even if you don’t anticipate that this will actually help the third party, focus on how this deal at least won’t inconvenience them in any way. If they’re used to working with a key person, it would be helpful if you can tell them that person will be staying with the company after the transaction. For employees, this will naturally involve a discussion about their continued employment and opportunities post-closing. The important point is to remember to focus on what the deal does for the third party more than what it does for you. 3. Have a strategy for those who aren’t willing to play ball If you get someone who simply won’t cooperate, you’ll want to have a plan for moving forward. Sometimes there’s a way to work around the third party. Sometimes you’ll have to be prepared to offer something to the third party to get them to play. Developing a strategy to deal with the difficult third parties not only becomes helpful if they won’t cooperate, but it also helps you prioritize your efforts toward these third parties. Even with prior planning, you won’t be able to avoid all interactions with third parties. And, as a buyer, you’d rather find out if there are third-party problems before stroking a big check to the seller. As such, developing a good strategy early on for addressing third-party relationships is critical to ensuring a successful transaction. Next Month: Alternative Transaction Structures Read last month’s piece: Employee Incentives - Part 2

The Anatomy of a Deal Newsletter
Newsletter

Employee Incentives - Part 2

Each month, Eric Duffee looks at a different piece of The Anatomy of a Deal – a series of easy-to-digest articles that break down complicated aspects of business transactions – helping you better understand terms + processes that can shape the direction of your business. Last month, we talked about some of the preliminary considerations in making an equity award. With those general principles in mind, this month we’ll talk about some of the most typical equity compensation alternatives that are available once you’ve decided to provide some sort of equity-based award. Of course, this isn’t everything, but it’s a good start. So, let’s start with the “true equity” arrangements. And the most widely-recognized from of equity award is…Options Options are the equity award with which people tend to be most familiar. Options are pretty simple. The recipient gets the right to buy equity at a future date using today’s price. So, as long as the equity appreciates in value over time, the recipient gets the benefit of buying the equity at a discounted price. If the issuer is a corporation, there are two flavors of options available: incentive stock options (ISOs) or nonqualified stock options (NQSOs). Economically, both of these work the same way as described above, but they have very different tax treatments. ISOs are not taxable to the recipient at the time the option is granted, or at the time the option is exercised. Instead, the ISO becomes taxable only when the stock received upon exercise is ultimately sold. At the time of sale, the difference between what the recipient receives in the sale and the amount he or she paid for the stock by exercising the option will be taxed at the more-favorable capital gains rates (assuming the required holding periods are met). In contrast, NQSOs are taxed – at latest – at the time of the exercise of the option. And, to make things worse, they are taxed at the higher ordinary income rates. So, while the recipient still has the same economic benefit, the recipient suffers two distasteful tax impacts relative to the ISO: recognition of taxable income at a time when he or she may not have actually received any cash with which to pay it (the dreaded “phantom income”), and a tax rate that is higher. The silver lining is that, after the tax is paid at exercise as described above, subsequent appreciation occurring thereafter will be taxed upon ultimate sale at the capital gains rates. So, why not only grant ISOs? Unfortunately, there are limits on who can receive ISOs, and how many ISOs they can receive. In some cases, awards are structured to grant as many ISOs as possible, but the excess (if any) will be NQSOs. If your company is not taxed as a corporation, then the tax treatment of any type of option will follow that of the NQSO. Although options are perhaps the most well-known form of equity award, they’re not nearly as common as they used to be. That’s because there are other alternatives that may be more attractive in many cases.Equity Grants Straight equity grants are very simple. If I want you to own 5% of the equity of the company, I just issue you equity equal to 5% of the company’s outstanding stock. The tax treatment of this award is equally simple. Whatever that equity is worth is immediately taxable to the recipient at the ordinary income rates. In our example, if the company is worth $1 million, then the 5% stock grant will result in taxable income of $50,000. This could be problematic because – like NQSOs – the recipient doesn’t actually have any cash with which to pay the tax (phantom income!). Unfortunately, there’s no easy way around this problem. There is, however, an alternative that allows us to spread out the tax hit: restricted equity. If we take the same 5% equity grant but vest the award in 1% increments over 5 years, then only $10,000 is taxable in the first year, which is a little more manageable for the employee. This also provides a nice ancillary benefit to the employer because the employee forfeits the unvested equity if they leave prior to the vesting date – the much-celebrated “glue-in-the-seat.” Spreading out the tax cost may make the pill a little easier to swallow in the short-term, but it could actually result in the employee paying more tax in total. Using the same example, if the company’s value grows steadily from $1 million in year 1 to $5 million in year 5, the employee will end up receiving taxable income as follows: Year % Vested Company Value Taxable Income 1 1% $1,000,000 $10,000 2 1% $2,000,000 $20,000 3 1% $3,000,000 $30,000 4 1% $4,000,000 $40,000 5 1% $5,000,000 $50,000 So while the employee would have paid taxes on only $50,000 of income if they had bit the bullet and recognized the entire tax in year 1, they end up paying 3 times as much in taxes by deferring the tax with restricted stock. To complicate things, the employee has a decision to make at the time the stock is initially granted in year 1, because the tax code gives an employee who receives restricted stock the option to make a so-called 83(b) election. If the employee in our example had made the 83(b) election, they would pick up the $50,000 in taxable income on the full 5% equity grant in year 1, but then wouldn’t pay further taxes based on the increased appreciation between years 1 and 5. Instead, they will pay taxes – at the more-favorable capital gains rates – only if and when the stock is thereafter sold. But the 83(b) election raises its own set of unique risks. For example, if the stock actually goes down in value, the employee would have paid less in taxes if they had waited and paid the tax only when each installment vests. Also, if they forfeit the stock by leaving the company, there’s no way to recover the “prepaid” taxes by making the 83(b) election. So, the 83(b) election is an interesting alternative, but unless the stock is worth very little in year 1, there’s a bit of a gamble involved with making the election. On the other hand, when the stock’s value is very low in year 1 – such as may be the case in a brand-new start-up – an 83(b) election may be a no-brainer. And, as noted in last month’s installment, the 83(b) election requires quick action and the rules are unforgiving. So, if you receive an equity award and are thinking about an 83(b) election, you need to work with your tax advisors ASAP to make a decision and file. If you miss the deadline, you’re stuck.Profits Interests The profits interest is a very popular equity compensation structure but is only available to companies that are taxed as a partnership (including LLCs that are taxed as partnerships). Economically, the profits interest works like an option, but benefits from more efficient tax treatment, and doesn’t require the employee to pay anything for the equity. A profits interest gives the recipient participation in a percentage of the future appreciation in the company’s value. The profits interest holder does not share in any of the existing value of the company at the time the profits interest is granted. So, if the company is valued at $10 million, grants a 5% profits interest, and later sells for $20 million, the math would work like this: The first $10 million goes entirely to the original owner(s) of the company because the holder of the profits interest cannot participate in the existing company value. The next $10 million goes 95% to the original owner(s) and 5% to the profits interest holder. So the original owner(s) gets $19.5 million of the total proceeds, and the profits interest holder gets $500,000. The good news, though, is that the profits interest has the following tax benefits to the recipient: The profits interest holder does not pay any tax at the time the profits interest is granted. Although the profits interest is a true equity award (like an equity grant described above), the structure of the profits interest is such that it has no value at the time of grant. That’s because if the company liquidated immediately after the grant, all of the existing value goes back to the original owner(s). Also, because the profits interest is real equity, the ultimate sale of the profits interest results in capital gains income to the holder, rather than ordinary income. So, the profits interest avoids the phantom income that we get on the front end with a straight equity grant, but still gets the benefit of capital gains treatment upon sale. Not too shabby! The trade-off, of course, is that the recipient doesn’t get anything for the existing company value, like they would in an equity grant. But if the idea is to compensate the recipient for contributing to the future growth of the company, then it seems appropriate that they would only participate in a portion of that future growth. Now we veer into the world of synthetic equity. While there are many different types of synthetic equity, the two most common are as follows:Phantom Stock Phantom stock (not to be confused with the dreaded phantom income) is really just a compensation plan that pays the employee based on the value of the company’s stock. Because the employee doesn’t have actual equity, there’s less risk of complications with phantom stock (e.g., voting rights, fiduciary duties, buying back the equity, etc.), but the tax situation can be problematic to the employee. Phantom equity differs from the equity appreciation right (described below) because phantom equity is tied to the value of the entire share of stock, not just the future appreciation on that stock. So, it’s essentially the synthetic equivalent of the straight equity grant. The good news to the employee with phantom stock is that there is no tax until the phantom stock becomes payable. Oddly – and happily – enough, phantom stock (if structured properly) won’t result in phantom income. Go figure! The bad news, though, is that, when the phantom stock is finally paid, the employee gets taxed at the higher ordinary income rates. For example, if we give our employee 5% phantom stock in the company that pays upon the employee’s death, disability, or change of control, nothing happens until the employee gets paid. But when the company is sold in year 5 for $10,000,000, the employee gets $500,000 in cash, all of which is taxable at the ordinary income rates. Unfortunately, phantom stock arrangements are generally treated as “deferred compensation” programs for purposes of Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code (as was mentioned last month). So, you have to be very careful about how you structure the phantom stock arrangement; once established, it may be difficult to change. Also, keep in mind that if you agree to pay out the phantom stock on events, other than changes of control or other liquidity events, you’ll need to figure out both (1) how to value the stock, and (2) a way to fund these payment obligations when cash may or may not be available to the company. All of this will need to be carefully planned at the outset. Equity Appreciation Rights Equity appreciation rights are a mix between phantom equity and the profits interest. Like phantom equity, the equity appreciation right is a right to compensation that is tied to the value of the company’s equity. Like the profits interest, the employee gets compensated based only on a percentage of the future growth of the company. But unlike the profits interest, the proceeds from the equity appreciation right are taxed at the higher ordinary income rates. So, if we use our same example as included in the discussion of the profits interest, our employee still gets the same $500,000, but pays taxes at the higher ordinary rates. Section 409A also has an impact on equity appreciation rights. Generally, the equity appreciation right will need to be structured to limit the employee’s compensation to the difference between the value of the underlying equity on the date of grant, and the value of that same equity at the time of exit. There are also restrictions on including additional features that will further defer when the payment gets made. So, again, it’s important to be careful in setting up an equity appreciation arrangement. Keep in mind that this is only a high-level summary. We didn’t even try to delve into the details about how these programs must be structured in order to comply with applicable legal and tax requirements. Suffice to say, there are countless traps for the unwary with each of these programs. There are many related considerations that need to be weighed in terms of economics, employee retention, and behavior. As an owner, you need to be thoughtful about how you structure, and ultimately present, an equity-based compensation arrangement. You won’t be surprised to hear that there are no “one-size-fits-all” solutions here, and equity-based compensation programs clearly aren’t for everyone. There may be other ways to achieve the same goals without causing some of the complications that go along with these programs, such as transaction bonus arrangements, incentive plans based on various financial metrics, etc. But, armed with some of this basic knowledge, you can start to assess where and how these programs might fit in your business. “Now you know. And knowing is half the battle.” – G.I. Joe Next Month: Interactions with Third Parties Read last month’s piece: Employee Incentives - Part 1

The Anatomy of a Deal Newsletter
Newsletter

Employee Incentives - Part 1

One of the challenges faced by many start-up and early growth stage businesses is how to attract and retain the talent needed to fuel growth when cash is scarce. Many of these companies use “equity-based incentives” as a tool to bridge this gap. In theory, these incentives – if properly designed – align your key employees’ interests with your interests as an owner. Therefore, these types of incentives can be a useful tool, but they’re also ripe with opportunities to royally screw things up. So, before even broaching the topic with a current or future employee, it’s important to get educated about exactly what you’re offering. And the menu is extensive, depending on the company and the circumstances, including: equity grants, restricted equity, restricted equity units, incentive stock options, nonqualified stock options, profits interests, phantom equity, stock appreciation or unit appreciation rights, and more! There are so many considerations that go into this that we couldn’t possibly attempt to cover them all here. Each decision has consequences on (1) employee behavior, (2) company operations and decision-making, and (3) tax treatment, among other things. While we’ll only be scratching the surface, let’s start to look at some of the key considerations.To Give Equity, or Not to Give Equity: That is the Question If you’ve already decided to provide some kind of equity-based incentive, the first question is whether to give actual equity or something that mimics equity. Actual equity would include the actual stock (in the case of a corporation) or membership interests (in the case of an LLC). The simplest strategy is just to give the employee actual equity in the company and call it a day. But giving actual equity isn’t always the best answer. Equity owners have certain rights by law – some of which can be modified and some of which cannot. For example, while you can usually create equity interests that have no voting rights and that may have more limited rights to profit distributions, you should create these terms before promising the equity to your employee. On the other hand, certain rights of equity owners cannot be completely waived, including the right to access certain company information and the right to institute a claim for breach of fiduciary duties. An even more significant potential complication is the need to get that equity back from the employee if things don’t go as planned. At best, negotiating contracts to require the employee to sell – or potentially forfeit – their equity if they’re no longer with your company can be difficult, expensive, and time-consuming. At worst, certain contractual restrictions may be difficult to enforce, leaving you with a partner that is no longer working with your company. For these reasons, many companies are reluctant to give actual equity to employees but still want to compensate employees for growth in the company’s value. Enter the impressive-sounding category of “synthetic equity.” Notwithstanding the fancy name, synthetic equity is just a contract that gives the employee rights to payments tied to the equity value (or growth in equity value) of the company. Unlike actual equity, synthetic equity gives the employee no rights of an equity owner, except those rights you give them by contract. The company’s owner doesn’t owe fiduciary duties to holders of synthetic equity, nor do synthetic equity holders have rights to company information, unless you decide to give them that information by contract. Common types of phantom equity include phantom stock (just in time for Halloween!) and stock appreciation/unit appreciation rights (sometimes called SARs – not the disease). The trade-off (you knew there had to be a trade-off) is that synthetic equity is treated just like any other compensation for tax purposes. So, it will be taxed to the employee as wage income at the generally-higher “ordinary income” tax rates. By contrast, actual equity is a capital asset, and subsequent gains on the equity are generally taxed at the more-favorable “capital gains” tax rates, subject to…I've Got 83 Problems Taxation of equity awards is – in a word – complicated. You can thank Internal Revenue Code Sections 83 and 409A (described below) for that. Section 83 has been around for a long time and says that property received in connection with the performance of services is taxed to the recipient at the time the property is no longer subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture. That is, of course, unless you elect to have it taxed earlier by making the so-called Section 83(b) election. Huh? So why do I care about any of this? Simply stated, most equity-based incentives will need to be structured carefully to achieve the right tax result and to avoid problems for the company and the employee. For example, let’s say you decide to give a key employee 10% of your company as an outright equity grant. Under Section 83, the employee is taxed at “ordinary income” rates when the stock is “no longer subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture” (whatever that means). So if you just give 10% of the stock of your company and the total company value is $1,000,000, then your employee gets taxed on $100,000 of ordinary income. This, of course, presents a big problem for the employee because he/she has $100,000 of taxable income but doesn’t actually receive cash to pay the tax. Many employees would find this result to be disagreeable. On the bright side, however, if the company is sold more than a year later for $10,000,000, the employee will now have a tax basis of $100,000 in the stock, and the $900,000 gain (i.e., [$10,000,000 total company value x 10% employee share] - $100,000 employee tax basis) will be taxed at the more favorable long-term capital gains rate. Now, if we wanted to lessen the tax hit to the employee on the front end, we could use something called restricted stock to spread the tax hit. Let’s say we give our employee the same 10%, but it vests in equal annual installments of 2% each over a period of 5 years. If the employee leaves the company before the vesting date for any installment, the unvested installments are forfeited. In year 1, when the first 2% vests and the company is worth $1,000,000, the employee only picks up taxable income on the vested portion, which is $20,000 (i.e., $1,000,000 total company value x 2% employee share that is vested). Still not ideal, but less of a burden on the employee and perhaps something that the company could help to cover through loans or additional cash bonuses (which bonuses are taxable as well). The downside, however, is that if the company continues to increase in value, the total tax impact will exceed that which would have existed if the full 10% was taxed at the time of the initial grant. In our example, if the company is worth $2,000,000 in year 2, the 2% block that vests in year 2 will now result in taxable income of $40,000 (i.e., $2,000,000 total company value x 2% employee share that is vested). As you can see, when the company grows in value – which, after all, is the point – the total tax impact of the restricted stock grant is greater. This is where the so-called Section 83(b) election becomes a consideration. This allows the employee who receives restricted stock or other unvested property to ignore the vesting restrictions and take the full value of the total equity grant into taxable income in year 1 even though it vests over time. The downside is that if the full grant doesn’t vest or if the company doesn’t appreciate in value, the employee may end up paying more tax than if he/she hadn’t made the Section 83(b) election. It’s very much a roll of the dice except in situations where the value is so low at the time of initial grant that it’s a no-brainer. Due to the many complications involved, the Section 83(b) election is beyond the scope of this article. That said, the important thing to remember is that you must make a Section 83(b) election in writing within 30 days after the initial grant. No exceptions. So you need to get good advice on whether it makes sense to make the election and take the appropriate steps as soon as the grant is made. The moral of the story is that Section 83 may result in a significant impact on both the employee and the company. Speaking of which…Clean-Up Make Bigger Messes with Formula 409A  Enough tax talk, right? I wish. Section 83 only applies to property received in connection with services. Equity is property; synthetic equity is not. So, we don’t have any tax issues if we grant synthetic equity, right? Enter Section 409A, which was added in the days after the Enron debacle as a way to punish the largesse of public company executives who liked to use deferred compensation plans to avoid taxation, but then could simply take the money and run at the first sign of trouble. While much different from the problem that Section 409A arguably intended to correct, Section 409A impacts the structure of both true equity and synthetic equity awards. The problem with Section 409A is that – as is all too common when Congress actually attempts to fix a problem – it uses the sledgehammer rather than the scalpel. Section 409A applies to all companies: big and small, public and private. While super-complicated, at its core, Section 409A requires any compensation plan that provides for actual or potential payments in future years to be in writing at the time the compensation right is granted, to limit when and how the compensation may be paid, and to restrict the employee from thereafter changing when and how these amounts will be paid. And the cost of non-compliance is steep. Failure to comply with Section 409A may result in immediate taxation even if the compensation will not be paid for several years, a 20% penalty on the full amount of compensation that is subject to Section 409A, and interest. Another disagreeable result. I’m not going to go any further into Section 409A here because there are literally hundreds of pages of mind-numbing regulations that include rules, exceptions, and exceptions-to-the-exceptions. Suffice to say that it’s important that you get professional advice on how Section 409A might affect your incentive program to avoid a very bad surprise later. --- So the executive summary is that equity-based incentive programs are complicated and require a lot of thought, planning, and expert advice to implement correctly. Failure to do so could have catastrophic effects. For example – and to show that I’m not simply being hyperbolic – in a transaction we worked on several years ago, the target company (which we didn’t represent) had a SAR plan drafted for certain key employees. The only problem is that the way it was drafted gave the SAR participants 100% of the company’s value. Not exactly what the actual owner had in mind. Having set the stage – and made you wish that you had pushed the “Report Spam” button when this message hit your inbox – we’ll dig into the different “options” (pun intended) for equity-based incentives in next month’s piece. Next Month: Employee Incentives - Part 2 Read last month’s piece: Representation + Warranty Insurance

The Anatomy of a Deal Newsletter
Newsletter

Representation + Warranty Insurance

This piece is a collaboration with Vince Stasiulewicz, a Certified Public Accountant and Client Executive at Hylant, a full-service insurance advisory firm.  Throughout this series, we’ve talked a great deal about the allocation of risk between the Buyer and the Seller. Using this dynamic, the results are largely binary: more protection for the Buyer means greater risk to the Seller. For many years, there was no alternative to this dynamic, which led to some contentious negotiations in many deals. There has to be a better way, right? In some deals, there is! Representation and warranty (R+W) insurance has emerged and is becoming more and more common, particularly in deals with purchase prices of $40 million plus.What is it? Like any other insurance product, the idea of R+W insurance is to shift the risk of losses to the insurance company. If the Buyer discovers a breach of the representations and warranties the Seller made in the purchase agreement, R+W insurance effectively stands in the place of the Seller and reimburses the Buyer for its losses – of course, subject to certain exclusions. Also, like other insurance policies, there are deductibles and policy limits that apply, and the cost of the policy depends, in part, upon what deductibles and limits are selected. In short, R+W insurance is a good option for almost any deal in which the coverage is available at a reasonable cost. That’s the kind of hard-hitting analysis you’ve come to expect from The Anatomy of a Deal.Who pays for the policy? You already knew the answer had to be “it depends!” There are actually different types of policies: a Buyer’s policy or a Seller’s policy. A Buyer’s policy provides direct coverage to the Buyer for its losses resulting from a breach of the Seller’s representations and warranties in the purchase agreement. A Seller’s policy provides coverage to help fund the Seller’s obligations in the event the Buyer makes a claim against the Seller under the purchase agreement. From a Seller’s perspective, the Buyer’s policy is much preferred because it removes the Seller from the process almost entirely – the Buyer simply looks to the insurance company for payment, rather than the Seller. By contrast, the Seller’s policy only kicks in once the Buyer makes a claim against the Seller, which the Seller still has to defend and then make a claim against the policy proceeds. As such, you typically only see Seller’s policies when the Buyer has refused to accept an R+W insurance policy. Therefore, you would rightly expect that Seller’s policies are paid for by the Seller. On the other hand, there are often negotiations as to who pays for a Buyer’s policy. Sometimes – particularly in an auction process – the Buyer may offer to pay for the entire cost of the policy in an effort to sweeten its offer. Alternatively, the parties could agree to split the costs of the insurance. If the Seller is paying for any portion of the insurance premiums, the Seller must decide whether the cost is justified or whether the Seller would rather self-insure the risk. After all, if the Seller was 100% certain there would be no risk of post-closing claims, the Seller would be better off not buying the insurance. But that’s the nature of insurance generally; you’re paying for the benefit of shifting the risk of unknown future losses to the insurer. Nobody needs insurance until they need it. #analysisHow much does the coverage cost? There are several components that contribute to the cost of the coverage, namely: (a) the policy limit, (b) the state in which the Buyer is domiciled, (c) a one-time underwriting fee charged by the insurer, and (d) the perceived risk of the deal by the underwriters. The premium charged for issuing the policy can vary but is typically within 2.5% to 4% of the coverage limits. The most common R+W limit (i.e., amount of coverage) is roughly 10% of the deal's value. The retention is generally roughly 1% of the deal's value, subject to a minimum of approximately $500,000, which may be able to be reduced by one-half after 12 months. Thus, for a $36 Million deal: The limit would be approximately $3.6 Million to $4 Million and The retention would be approximately $500,000 Current pricing indications for estimating would be in the expected ranges of: Premium: $120,000–$125,000 Plus Surplus Line Tax: $3,100 (again, different percentage based on state the Buyer is domiciled in) Plus Underwriter's external legal fee: $30,000–$35,000 Thus, the estimated total costs are likely to be in the range of $153,000–$163,000.How long does it take to put coverage in place? The R+W process – with all info available – should be allotted 4+ weeks. The underwriting process to purchase R+W insurance can be as short as seven days, though the initial phase of the effort can start much earlier. The first stage of the process involves working with an insurance broker to provide basic information and drafts of the transaction documents to one or more insurance companies. There are four key deal documents which the R+W underwriters require, as follows: Letter of Intent (LOI) Most current draft of the Sale/Purchase Agreement (SPA) Confidential Information Memorandum (CIM)/”Road Show” Document, if any Audited financials of the Seller for the past 2–3 full fiscal years + interim infoNOTE: If audited financial statements are not available, the underwriter will likely insist upon a quality of earnings report issued by a qualified CPA firm Upon receipt of the aforementioned information, the insurance companies then provide non-binding indications of the coverage they would be willing to provide, with premium estimates. If the parties proceed, there is a non-refundable underwriting fee (usually between $15,000 and $40,000) for the insurance company to proceed with its diligence. After it has performed its diligence, the insurance company will provide a draft insurance policy, and this is often followed by some negotiation over the coverage.What are the common exclusions? The most obvious “exclusions” are the deductible and the policy limit. The Buyer generally addresses the deductible by requiring the Seller to be responsible for at least some portion of the deductible amount. Sometimes that means making the Seller responsible for the entirety of losses within the policy deductible; sometimes it means a sharing of risk between Buyer and Seller for the policy deductible. For example, the Buyer may bear the risk for the first half of the policy deductible, but the Seller is responsible for the remainder of the policy deductible. A policy limit ends up working much like indemnity caps, which we’ve discussed in previous installments. As such, in a Buyer’s policy, the Buyer needs to be careful to set the policy limits at a level it believes to be sufficient. In that case, the Buyer takes virtually all risk for any losses that exceed the policy limits. There are other important exclusions as well. First, environmental claims generally don’t fall under R+W insurance. For environmental issues, you often need a separate environmental insurance policy. Second, underfunded pension liabilities often are not covered. Perhaps the most important limitation, however, is that the R+W insurance will not cover known issues. As such, anything the Buyer discovers during due diligence will become a policy exclusion. For these items, the Buyer will need to make sure that it has recourse against the Seller under the indemnification terms of the purchase agreement. Remember also that – as the name implies – R+W insurance only provides protection against breaches of the Seller’s representations and warranties. It won’t provide protection for other items for which Sellers generally have indemnification obligations, such as breaches of covenants (e.g., non-competition/confidentiality covenants, tax covenants, etc.). For all of the above reasons, it’s common that the Seller will still have some continuing indemnity obligations and that there will be some limited escrows in place to ensure that the Buyer has recourse. However, these escrows are usually much smaller when R+W insurance is in effect because the Buyer has successfully shifted much of the risk to the insurance company.Are there certain industries in which R+W insurance is not a viable option? There used to be certain industries that insurers would shy away from insuring. However, competitive market dynamics have forced insurers to narrow and eliminate many exclusions and also insure industries that were previously shied away from. The policies now have broader coverage with generally no restrictions on industry sector. Some industries, such as healthcare, used to be challenging to insure, but certain insurers have developed expertise in these areas and are now able to offer fulsome coverage. Insuring title on upstream oil and gas transactions can be challenging, although recent innovative products have been introduced to address this issue.What does the presence of R+W insurance do to the negotiations between the parties? If R+W insurance will be in place, the parties and their counsel need to be very careful to make sure that the purchase agreement and the insurance policy work well together. Otherwise, gaps could lead to unintended exposure that the insurance company won’t cover. If there’s a Buyer’s policy in place, that policy should also explicitly bar the insurance company from pursuing the Seller for claims the insurer pays to the Buyer. One of the more interesting effects of having R+W insurance in place is that negotiations over the representations and warranties in the purchase agreement become extremely Buyer-friendly. The insurance policy will mirror the representations and warranties in the purchase agreement. So, if the Seller negotiates to limit the scope of the representations and warranties – something that is very normal in a deal where there is no R+W insurance – the effect is to make the insurance less protective. As such, Buyers generally expect that the Sellers will not meaningfully attempt to limit the scope of the representations and warranties. While this seems simple in concept, recall that the Seller still has certain indemnity obligations. So the Seller ends up taking some enhanced risk on the representations and warranties, but its maximum exposure is more limited than what would typically exist.Should I use R+W insurance in my deal? If someone else is paying the premiums, then absolutely! If you’re paying for any part of the premium, then there’s a cost-benefit analysis to be completed. It’s worth talking with an experienced insurance broker to get a sense of what coverages might be available and what it may cost. The broker will become an important partner in the process of securing insurance, as he or she has a fiduciary duty to provide the best R+W terms to the policyholder while balancing the need to deliver a budget-appropriate solution. R+W insurance is much stricter as far as eligibility standards, due diligence, documentation and other requirements are concerned, and you need an expert on your side to walk you through the process. A qualified broker also excels in execution – making sure all the processes are done in the timeframe that’s right for the deal. This benefit brings together many of their qualities: In-depth knowledge of R +W insurance to make sure you get the appropriate coverage Contacts with insurance company underwriters to get the best terms possible, balancing coverages and cost Experience with the application and underwriting process to make sure you don’t make a mistake that creates delays The most important role played by brokers comes when a claim for a breach of the Seller’s reps is reported. Experienced brokers understand the requirements of the insurer to get the information necessary to evaluate the loss before they cut a check.What is the future of R+W insurance? Remember that R+W insurance is an insurance product like any other and is subject to market forces. After starting years ago with policies that provided poor coverage at high costs, the market has shifted, with good policies now being offered at competitive pricing. As such, the usage of R+W insurance has exploded in recent years. In fact, for many private equity deals, the use of R+W insurance is almost automatic. As claims continue to be made – and paid – by the insurers, there will probably be a correction in the marketplace to increase costs somewhat. That said, even with some shifts in the economic model, it appears that these policies will continue to serve as an important tool to facilitate deals and provide protection for both Buyers and Sellers into the future. Next Month: Employee Incentives: Part 1 Read last month’s piece: Life Cycle of a Deal

The Anatomy of a Deal Newsletter

Firm Highlights