Business Law and Transactions Law Blog
Business
Executive Playbook: Business Owners & the Changing Economy
In this episode, Russell Berger and Mike Cammarata discuss the impact of changing economic conditions on business owners. While the news is filled with stories about inflation and a slowing economy, Mike and Russell talk about the practical challenges this creates for businesses and actions that businesses can take to prepare for economic uncertainty.
June 29, 2022
Business
How to Avoid Derailing Your Sell Side M&A Transaction
There are many items and considerations that can derail your sell side M&A transaction. Active litigation, titling issues to assets and employee/benefit matters all could lead to the quick demise of your sale. Most times, these items are found when due diligence commences in earnest by your buyer. However, the single most item that will tank your deal (or have buyers pass before a deal commences) relates to sloppy financial books and records. A seller’s financial data is generally the first substantive intersection with a buyer. Even before a letter of intent is submitted, a buyer will want to see some financial records of the potential target. If the seller’s records are disorganized and not in accordance with proper standards, most buyers will move on. For all business owners having good financial statements is vital to operating a successful business; for sellers in the market, hoping clean records is a must-have. The inability to show the buyer financial value and clean operations is the foremost deal killer for a seller. Sellers wanting to sell their business should have their books and records scrubbed before going into the marketplace to make certain their finances are clean, normal and what would be expected by a buyer. Failure to do so may prevent a seller from landing that large payday.
May 13, 2022
Business
Tax Considerations when Selling your Business
Most business owners pay their fair share of taxes while running their company. When it comes time to sell the business, most owners are seeking tax strategies to minimize taxes paid on their gain. We know that tax considerations are a major driver of any commercial transaction, especially M&A transactions. So, what should a seller keep in mind when considering a sale? First, before going into the market and soliciting letters of intent (LOI), sellers should update their estate plan and engage in pre-transaction tax planning. Ideally, this planning should be finalized a year in advance of a sale. The closer to the sale, the less tax planning opportunities available. Estate planning strategies including gifting and otherwise transferring interests to reduce wealth received directly by the seller. Pre-tax planning may include reorganizing the structure of the business or changing tax elections. Once the seller receives an LOI, the proposed structure of the transaction becomes paramount for the seller’s tax planning. For example, structuring the transaction as an equity purchase likely could result in long-term capital gains treatment for the seller. An asset sale structure could lead to a mixed result of ordinary income as well as capital gains for the seller, depending on how the purchase price is allocated. Most times, a change in structure that benefits one party is a negative for the other party. Thus, the seller must have competent legal counsel versed in M&A and taxation issues. Further, how a purchase price is paid to the seller may have implications on timing as well as the treatment of the income. Monies paid overtime may lead to tax on the income being deferred to later years. Monies paid in forms such as for employment or consulting services or in consideration of a restrictive covenant likewise could have particular tax implications. In summary, selling a business is most times the largest financial transaction for an entrepreneur. Making certain to understand the tax treatment and implications at the earliest is paramount. After all, for any entrepreneur, the bottom-line net amount is what ultimately counts, not the top-line valuation.
April 20, 2022
Business
Before You Sell – Have an Accurate, Realistic Understanding of What You Actually Own
This statement seems obvious, right? From experience, I can tell you that while obvious, some sellers find out during the diligence and sale process that they do not own what they thought they owned. Take intellectual property and software rights as an example. Ownership of the software and the underlying source code can be complicated especially if the software went through a number of iterations. It can be fatal to a transaction to find out a key piece of software is not owned by the seller, or the seller has not secured the proper underlying licenses granting it the authority to do what it is doing. A best practice for all business owners is to regularly inventory their assets and confirm the ownership sourcing. Hard assets are easy to source, but finding titles and releasing liens during a transaction can add unnecessary stress. Soft assets can be tricky. A businesses’ name, logo and tag lines can be issues if the business never took the proper steps to register and confirm there were no conflicts. There is nothing worse than determining a business’ name has a conflict with another business and having to then rebrand the business and take a new course. In sum, the time to determine asset ownership and the status of any clean-up is well before being asked by a buyer to provide confirmation of ownership during the sale process.
February 9, 2022
Business
How to Know if You’re Ready to Sell Your Business
As a business owner, how does one now know the time is right to sell? The easy answer is that the time is right when the owner decides to sell. However, that answer is too simplistic and does not serve the owner well. There are two primary factors to evaluate the timing to sell a business – external considerations and internal considerations. External considerations frequently are not well vetted by many owners. External factors include the market conditions, such as the general receptivity to the owner’s business type (e.g., is the market hungry to acquire PT practices). Other external factors that impact market conditions include the tax framework and access to capital. As mentioned, too many owners decide they want to sell without fully understanding the external considerations as to the optimal time to sell their business. The reason this happens relates back to the internal considerations. The owner determines they want (or need) to sell. It could be circumstantially driven (a family illness or death). It could be a mindset such as an owner being fed up with the pandemic. Regardless, the internal pressures/decisions often outweigh what is going happening in the rest of the world. An owner can manage their mindset by getting themselves fully informed about the true state of their business and how it presently fits into the marketplace. In addition to speaking with the company attorney and CPA, the owner can get the insight of 2 other advisors and services. First, the owner may want to speak with an investment banker. The investment banker can provide the owner with market intelligence about the receptibility of the market to the owner’s business, as well as give the owner insight into how to position the business best for the sale. Further, the owner should speak with a financial advisor. Because a significant component of any sale relates to financial considerations, having an excellent financial advisor help the owner understand their financial picture is key. The financial advisor should do two things. First, this advisor should work with the investment banker/CPA to get a true market value for the business to include the likely composition of sale funds (all cash, cash plus deferred monies, etc.). Second, the financial advisor should work with the owner on their personal financial situation. Having an understanding of what the business is likely worth in the market coupled with the financial needs of the owner allows the owner to go into the selling state fully informed and ready to powerfully evaluate any offers. I find that too many owners decide to sell without having their financial house in order and thus have no ability to vet offers to know that the offers are fair and workable. Lastly, an owner may know they are ready to sell when their mindset is clear. When they have purpose beyond the business. I have experienced a number of owners that have sold their business only to become lost and disaffected. An owner that wants to sell needs to deliberately develop their “life” after their business is sold.
January 20, 2022
Business
Treasury Department Issues Proposed Regulations on Disclosure of Beneficial Ownership for Most Business Entities
On December 8, 2021, the Department of Treasury issued a release containing a set of proposed regulations that would implement the reporting requirements for disclosure of Beneficial Ownership Information (BOI) of most US and foreign entities doing business in the US under the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) adopted by Congress in January 2021. The comment period for these regulations extends until February 22, 2021. Commencing with the effective date of the final rule, the reporting regime would commence for all newly formed entities. All existing entities would be subject to the reporting requirements commencing one year after the effective date of the regulations. It is estimated that these reporting requirements would apply to approximately 4 million newly formed entities each year and 25 million existing entities in the first year of its effectiveness. The proposed regulations require all “reporting companies”, as discussed below, to report to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) identifying information concerning any individual who either (i) exercises substantial control over the entity or (ii) owns or controls at least 25% of the ownership interests of the entity. The proposed regulations provide a range of activities that would constitute “substantial control” including (x) service as a senior officer of the entity, (y) authority over the appointment or removal of a senior officer or dominant member of a board of directors or similar body, or (z) direction, determination, or decision of, or substantial influence over, important matters for the entity. The proposed regulations also indicate that substantial control can be exercised through a number of ways by title, contract, arrangement, understanding, relationship, or otherwise, whether directly or through intermediate entities. Similarly, “ownership interests” can be evidenced in a variety of ways including equity, capital or profits interest, convertible instruments, options, through trusts, or otherwise, and either directly or indirectly through intermediate entities. Reporting companies are defined to include all domestic corporations, limited liability companies and other entities that are formed by the filing of a document with the secretary or similar agency of a state or Indian Tribe, or foreign entities that qualify to do business by the filing of a document with a state or Indian Tribe. Therefore, the regulation clarifies that limited partnerships, statutory trusts, and most other business entities would be subject to the regime. As listed in the CTA, there are 23 exempted categories of entities that are not subject to the regulations, primarily because most of these are already subject to FinCEN regulations or other governmental requirements regarding disclosure of beneficial ownership. The broadest category of exempt entities is so-called “large operating companies” which are defined as companies operating in the US that have more than 20 full-time equivalent employees and have reported over $5 million in gross operating receipts on a federal tax return. In addition to the BOI disclosure, the proposed regulations would require the disclosure of information concerning the individual or individuals who directed or controlled the formation of a reporting company. The BOI that must be reported for each beneficial owner by a reporting company includes (i) the individual’s full legal name, (ii) date of birth, (iii) current residential or business address, and (4) unique identifying number, which would include a passport number, driver’s license, or similar number issued by a governmental agency, together with a copy of the document that contains such identifying number. Once an individual’s information was included in a report, FinCEN would issue its own identifying number to be used for any subsequent reports filed with respect to such individual. Identifying information concerning the reporting company would also be mandated under the proposed regulations. Under the CTA, as implemented by the proposed regulations, the disclosure of BOI for each beneficial owner must be reported not only within 14 days of the formation of the entity, or for existing entities, within one year of the effective date of the regulations, but also upon any change in the information reported. The proposed regulations state that the updated BOI must be reported within 30 days of the change. The release indicates that FinCEN has to develop a new IT system, to be called the Beneficial Ownership Disclosure System (BOSS) in order to collect and provide access to the BOI, which may ultimately affect the effective date of the final regulations. The intent behind the CTA and the proposed regulations is to promote financial transparency and compliance and to assist the US government and law enforcement agencies in combatting money laundering, terrorist financing, drug and arms trafficking, and other illegal acts conducted through so-called “shell companies”. These proposed regulations are part of a larger effort by the Biden administration to combat business corruption, and two other rule-making initiatives were announced in the issuing release, including a strengthening of FinCEN’s Customer Due Diligence rules adopted in 2016 and the implementation of protocols regarding access to and the disclosure of information collected by FinCEN under the CTA. We will be monitoring further developments in the adoption of regulations regarding the reporting of BOI for business entities. Please feel free to contact me with any questions.
December 20, 2021
Business
Employer Restraints on Employee Competition Under Attack
In many employment relationships, particularly those involving employees with management roles, customer contacts or specialized knowledge, employers have sought to restrain the employee from competing with the employer’s business after terminating employment. These so-called “Covenants Not to Compete” have always been subject to court-imposed restraints in order to be enforceable – the covenant may not last for an unreasonable length of time following termination of employment, and the geographic scope of the covenant must be reasonably related to the potential harm to the employer’s business. In recent years, however, an increasing number of states have enacted statutory limitations and, in some cases, bans on Covenants Not to Compete on employees. In 2019, Maryland enacted a law that prohibits the enforcement of Covenants Not to Compete against workers earning less than $15 per hour, or $31,200 annually. This year, Virginia enacted a similar ban on enforcement of such covenants for workers earning less than the average weekly wage of workers in Virginia, $1,204 per week, or $62,608 annually. Similar laws exist in other states, including Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, New Hampshire, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Washington. Significantly, in 2021, the District of Columbia enacted a very broad law that will take effect this fall that will render unenforceable Covenants Not to Compete in all employment agreements entered into by private employers operating in the District of Columbia (with limited exceptions for certain categories including religious or nonprofit organizations and casual babysitters). The law will, therefore, effectively ban employers from requiring employees to enter into agreements that “prohibit the employee from being simultaneously or subsequently employed by another person, performing work or providing services for pay for another person, or operating the employee's own business.” The effect of this law, therefore, is broader than that of the typical Covenant Not to Compete in that it also would render unenforceable so-called “anti-moonlighting” prohibitions that are often contained in employment agreements or employment handbooks. The law is prospective in effect, so existing Covenants Not to Compete are not impacted. Further, the law specifically carves out Covenants Not to Compete executed in the context of the sale of a business. The law also affirms that other restraints against employees from “disclosing the employer's confidential, proprietary, or sensitive information, client list, customer list, or a trade secret” are not included within the scope of the law. Employers should consult with legal counsel knowledgeable in the laws of the local jurisdiction where they operate before entering into employment agreements that contain Covenants Not to Compete in order to ensure that such agreements are enforceable.
July 14, 2021
Business
Avoiding an Adverse Tax Impact on Death of an S Corporation Shareholder
As Published on American Bar Association – ABA Tax Section I. Introduction One of the main reasons to consider a partnership for owning a business rather than an S Corporation is the adverse impact upon death if the business is held by an S Corporation. Now there are solutions to this problem for S Corporation shareholders that tax advisers need to add to their toolbox. These solutions convert the tax status of the business from an S Corporation to a partnership for federal tax purposes, in a federal income tax-neutral manner. This can be accomplished through liquidation in the case of a deceased shareholder or reorganization prior to death of a shareholder. A. Upon the Death of an S Corporation Owner Specifically, upon the death of an S Corporation owner, the heirs are denied the benefits of receiving a step-up in bases in underlying corporate assets to fair market value. In a partnership, the heirs receive a full income tax-free step-up in basis for all of the underling partnership assets and the benefits of obtaining the income tax shelter from new large depreciation deductions. However, in an S Corporation when the owner dies, the shareholder heirs only receive a step-up of basis in the corporate stock equal to the fair market value of the company at the date of death. The underlying S Corporation assets retain the same pre-death tax bases even though the decedent estates in both cases have the same federal estate tax implications and costs. Therefore, the S Corporation heirs should consider promptly liquidating the corporation to also achieve an income-tax neutral stepped-up basis for the company’s assets. This same technique can also be considered if a surviving shareholder buys out the estate of a deceased shareholder. If you have questions about this or any other legal matter, please feel free to contact Herb Fineburg at 267.338.1376 or Charles McCauley, III at 484.531.1712. Read the full article below.
April 1, 2021
