Category: Business Organizations

If You Pay More, Do You Actually Get More? Re: Limited Partnerships and Limited Liability Companies

AM logo with tagline

The typical private fund is organized as a limited partnership or limited liability company that is managed by a general partner or manager.  The fund manager is usually compensated in three ways – an annual management fee (often 2%), a carried interest (often 20%), and an investment in the fund (often 1%).  In a recently presented paper, Professors David T. Robinson and Berk A. Sensoy tackled the question of whether private fund managers actually earn their keep.

Given the limited rights of limited partners and members and asymmetrical access to information, one might expect that these professors would conclude that fund managers who charge more, actually under perform.  Based on an analysis of 837 buyout and venture capital private equity funds from 1984-2010 to, the two scholars reach the opposite conclusion:

[W]e find no evidence that high-fee funds underperform an on a net-of-fee basis [sic].  Management fees and carried interest are generally unrelated to net-of-fee cash flow performance.  This suggests that private equity GPs that receive higher compensation earn it in the form of higher gross returns.  When we examine the relation between GP ownership and performance, our evidence flatly contradicts the argument that GPs with low skin in the game demonstrate poor performance.

You can read the entire paper here.  Unfortunately, the authors don’t reveal the source of their data, but rather mysteriously describe it as having been “obtained from a large, institutional limited partner with extensive investments in private equity”.  The paper was presented at the inaugural Sustainability and Finance Symposium held last week which was hosted by the California Public Employees Retirement System and the UC Davis Graduate School of Management.

Article By:

 of

 

U.S. Supreme Court Unanimously Upholds Creditability of UK Windfall Tax

McDermottLogo_2c_rgb

In a rare unanimous decision with potentially far-reaching impact on taxpayers claiming foreign tax credits, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a “windfall tax” imposed by the United Kingdom was creditable under IRC Section 901.

On May 20, 2013, in a rare unanimous decision with potentially far-reaching impact on taxpayers claiming foreign tax credits, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a “windfall tax” imposed by the United Kingdom was creditable under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 901.  This decision definitively establishes the principles to be applied when determining whether a foreign tax is creditable under Section 901, expressly favoring a “substance-over-form” evaluation of a foreign tax’s economic impact.

The UK windfall tax was enacted in 1997 as a means to recoup excess profits earned by 32 UK utility and transportation companies once owned by the government.  During the 1980s and 1990s, the UK sold several government-owned utility companies to private parties.  After privatization, the UK Government prohibited these companies from raising rates for an initial period of time.  Because only rates and not profits were regulated, many of these companies were able to greatly increase their profits by becoming more efficient.  The increased profitability of these companies drew public attention and became a hot political issue in the United Kingdom, which ultimately resulted in Parliament enacting a windfall tax designed to capture the excess or “windfall” profits earned by these companies during the years they were prohibited from raising rates.  The tax was 23 percent of any “windfall” earned by such companies, which was calculated by subtracting the price for which the company was sold by the United Kingdom from an imputed value based on the company’s average annual profits.  Both PPL Corporation and Entergy Corporation owned interests in two of these 32 privatized companies and took a U.S. tax credit for the windfall taxes paid to the United Kingdom.

IRC Section 901 grants U.S. citizens and corporations an income tax credit for “the amount of any income, war profits and excess-profits taxes paid or accrued during the taxable year to any foreign country or to any possession of the United States.”  Whether a foreign tax is creditable for U.S. income tax purposes is based upon the “predominant standard for creditability” laid out in Treasury Regulation §1.901-2.  Under that approach, a foreign tax is an income tax “if and only if the tax, judged on the basis of its predominant character,” satisfies three tests.  The foreign tax must be imposed on realized income (i.e., income that has already been earned), the basis of gross receipts (i.e., revenue) and net income (i.e., gross receipts less significant costs and expenditures).  See Treas. Reg. §1.901-2(a)(3).

The Supreme Court’s decision resolved a split between the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Third and Fifth Circuits on how to apply the predominant standard for the creditability test set forth in the regulations.  The Third and Fifth Circuits took opposite views of two U.S. Tax Court decisions, PPL Corp.  v. Commissioner, 135 T.C. 304 (2010), and Entergy Corp.  v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2010-197, which both held in favor of the taxpayers that the practical effect of the UK windfall tax, the circumstances of its adoption and the intent of the members of Parliament who enacted it evidenced that the substance of the tax was to tax excess profits, and therefore was creditable.

In PPL Corp. v. Commissioner, 665 F.3d 60 (3d Cir. 2011), the Third Circuit reversed the Tax Court, refusing to consider the practical effect of the UK windfall tax and the intent of its drafters.  Instead, the court focused solely on the text of the UK statute, which in its estimation was a tax on excess value and not on profits.  In contrast, in Entergy Corp. v. Commissioner, 683 F.2d 233 (5th Cir. 2012), the Fifth Circuit affirmed the Tax Court, finding that the tax’s practical effect on the taxpayer demonstrated that the purpose of the tax was to tax excess profits.  The court explained that Parliament’s decision to label an “entirely profit-driven figure a ‘profit-making value’ must not obscure the history and actual effect of the tax.”

In its decision, the Supreme Court agreed with both the Fifth Circuit and the Tax Court.  In applying the rules of the Treasury Regulations, the Supreme Court reinforced the three basic principles to determine whether a tax is creditable.  First, a tax that functions as an income tax in most instances will be creditable even if a “handful of taxpayers” may be affected differently.  This means that the controlling factor is the tax’s predominant character.  Second, the economic effect of the tax, and not the characterization or structure of the tax by the foreign government, is controlling on whether the tax is an income tax.  This extends the principle of “substance over form” to the characterization of a foreign tax.  Third, a tax will be an income tax if it reaches net gain or profits.  Applying these principles to the PPL case, the Supreme Court found that the predominant character of the windfall tax was that of an excess profit tax and was therefore creditable.

The PPL decision will likely have far-reaching effects on courts that wrestle with whether certain taxes paid overseas are creditable for U.S. income tax purposes.

Article By:

of

The Jobs Act: Improving Access to Capital Markets for Smaller Companies

GT Law

On April 5, 2012, the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act or “Jobs Act” was signed into law by President Obama with the stated purpose of increasing American job creation and economic growth by improving access to the public capital markets for emerging growth companies. Specifically, the Jobs Act:

  • creates a new category of “emerging growth company” under the securities laws and reduces certain financial reporting and disclosure obligations on these companies for up to 5 years after their initial public offering;
  • directs the Securities and Exchange Commission to eliminate the prohibition on general solicitations for private offerings under Rule 506 of Regulation D and resales under Rule 144A;
  • legalizes crowdfunding through brokers and “funding portals”;
  • authorizes the SEC to increase the maximum amount permitted to be raised in a Regulation A offering from $5 million to $50 million in any 12-month period; and
  • increases the number of shareholders of record that a company may have before it becomes obligated to file SEC reports.

Creation of the ‘Emerging Growth Company’ Designation

The Jobs Act creates the “emerging growth company” as a new category of issuer under both the Securities Act and the Securities Exchange Act.

Definition of “Emerging Growth Company”

An “emerging growth company” is an issuer that had total annual gross revenues of less than $1 billion during its most recently completed fiscal year. The issuer would continue to be an “emerging growth company” until the earlier of:

  • the last day of the fiscal year during which it had total annual gross revenues of $1 billion or more;
  • the last day of the fiscal year of the issuer following the fifth anniversary of its initial public offering;
  • the date on which the issuer has, during the previous 3-year period, issued more than $1 billion in non-convertible debt; and
  • the date on which it is deemed a “large accelerated filer.”

Notwithstanding the foregoing, an issuer that consummated an IPO on or prior to December 8, 2011 will not be eligible to be deemed an emerging growth company. The relief provided to emerging growth companies is available immediately.

Benefits for Emerging Growth Companies

Emerging growth companies will have more lenient disclosure and compliance obligations with respect to executive compensation, financial disclosures and certain new accounting rules. Specifically, an emerging growth company will not be required to:

  • comply with “say on pay” proposals or pay versus performance disclosures;
  • include more than two years of financial statements in the registration statement for its IPO;
  • include selected financial data for any period prior to the earliest audited period presented in connection with its IPO; or
  • comply with new or revised accounting standards that are only applicable to public reporting companies.

In addition, emerging growth companies will be exempt from the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, or SOX, and be given a longer transition period for compliance with new audit standards. Further, SOX has been amended to provide that any rules of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, or PCAOB, requiring mandatory audit firm rotation or auditor discussion and analysis will not apply to an emerging growth company. In addition, any future rules adopted by the PCAOB would not apply to audits of emerging growth companies unless the SEC determines otherwise.

The Jobs Act provides that emerging growth companies may start the IPO process by confidentially submitting draft registration statements to the SEC for nonpublic review. Confidentially submitted registration statements would need to be publicly available at least 21 days prior to beginning the road show for the IPO. Emerging growth companies would also be free to “test the waters” with qualified institutional buyers and institutional accredited investors before and during the registration process.

Analyst Reports for Initial Public Offerings of Emerging Growth Companies

The Jobs Act removes some of the restrictions on investment banks underwriting public offerings while simultaneously providing analyst research reports on a particular issuer that was designated as an “emerging growth company.”

Elimination of Prohibition on General Solicitation For Accredited Investors and Qualified Institutional Buyers

The Jobs Act directs the SEC to revise its rules to:

  • provide that the prohibition against general solicitation or general advertising will not apply to offers and sales of securities made pursuant to Rule 506, provided all purchasers of the securities are accredited investors, and
  • provide that the prohibition against general solicitation or general advertising will not apply to offers and sales made under Rule 144A, provided that the seller reasonably believes that all purchasers of the securities are qualified institutional buyers.

It is currently unclear whether these exemptions will apply to offerings exempt from registration under Section 4(2) of the Securities Act to the extent they do not satisfy all of the conditions of Rule 506. The SEC has 90 days from the date of enactment of the Jobs Act to promulgate rules to effect elimination of the specified prohibitions on general solicitation and general advertising.

Creation of a ‘Crowdfunding’ Exemption

Crowdfunding refers to the recent (often internet facilitated) technique of seeking financing for a business through small investments from a relatively large pool of individual investors. Under current securities laws, crowdfunding raises a number of problematic registration exemption issues. The Jobs Act attempts to remedy this by creating a new crowdfunding exemption from the registration requirements of the Securities Act for transactions involving the issuance of securities through a broker or SEC-registered “funding portal,” for which:

  • the aggregate amount of securities sold in the previous 12 months to all investors by the issuer is not more than $1 million; and
  • individual investments by any investor in the securities during any 12-month period are limited to:
    • the greater of $2,000 or 5 percent of the annual income or net worth of such investor, as applicable, if either the annual income or the net worth of the investor is less than $100,000; and
    • 10 percent of the annual income or net worth of such investor, as applicable, not to exceed a maximum aggregate amount sold of $100,000, if either the annual income or net worth of the investor is equal to or more than $100,000.

Such securities would be considered restricted securities subject to a one-year holding period, with certain exceptions, such as sales to accredited investors or family members. The Jobs Act also provides express securities fraud remedies against the issuer of securities sold under the crowdfunding exemption, which includes extending liability to directors, partners and certain senior officers of the issuer.

Disclosure Requirements

The issuer must file with the SEC, provide to the broker or funding portal, and make available to potential investors at least 21 days prior to the first sale, certain information about the issuer. This information is similar to what many companies currently use in offering memoranda in private offerings and includes:

  • the name, legal status, physical address and website of the issuer;
  • the names of officers, directors and greater than 20% shareholders;
  • a description of the issuer’s current and anticipated business;
  • a description of the financial condition of the issuer, including, for offerings where the aggregate amounts sold under the crowdfunding exemption are:
    • $100,000 or less, income tax returns for the most recently completed fiscal year and financial statements, certified by the principal executive officer of the issuer;
    • more than $100,000, but less than $500,000, financial statements reviewed by an independent public accountant; or
    • more than $500,000, audited financial statements;
  • a description of the intended use of proceeds;
  • the target offering amount and the deadline to raise such amount;
  • the price to the public of the securities, or method to determine the price;
  • a description of the ownership and capital structure of the issuer, including the terms of the offered security and each other security of the issuer and how such terms may be modified, limited, diluted or qualified;
  • risks to purchasers of minority ownership and corporate actions, including issuances of shares, sales of the issuer or its assets or transactions with related parties; and
  • such other information as the SEC may prescribe.

The issuer must also annually file with the SEC and provide to investors its results of operations and financial statements.

‘Blue Sky’ Pre-emption

Securities sold pursuant to the crowdfunding exemption are “covered securities” for purposes of the National Securities Markets Improvement Act, or NSMIA, and, therefore, are exempt from state securities registration requirements, or “Blue Sky,” laws. This preemption does not prohibit state enforcement actions based on alleged fraud, deceit, or unlawful conduct.

Creation of ‘Funding Portals’

A person acting as an intermediary in an offer or sale of securities under this new crowdfunding exemption will have to register with the SEC as a broker or funding portal and will also need to register with any applicable self-regulatory organizations. Such intermediary will also have to comply with a number of requirements designed to ensure that investors are informed of the possible risks associated with a new venture, including conducting background checks on each officer, director and greater than 20% shareholders of the issuer. Additionally, the Jobs Act instructs the SEC to promulgate rules or regulations under which an issuer, broker or funding portal would not be eligible, based on its disciplinary history, to utilize the exemption.

SEC Rulemaking

The SEC is directed to issue rules as may be necessary or appropriate for the protection of investors to implement the crowdfunding exemption within 270 days after the enactment of the Jobs Act. In addition, the dollar amounts are to be indexed for inflation at least every five years for changes in the consumer price index.

Raising the Regulation A Limit to $50 million

The Jobs Act amends Section 3(b) of the Securities Act to direct the SEC to amend Regulation A so as to increase the aggregate offering amount that may be offered and sold within the prior 12-month period in reliance on Regulation A from $5 million to $50 million. The SEC is required to review the limit every two years and to increase the amount as it determines appropriate or explain to Congress its reasons for not increasing the limit on Regulation A offerings.

No ‘Blue Sky’ Pre-emption

Predecessor bills would have made the Regulation A exemption more appealing by making Regulation A offered securities exempt from “Blue Sky” laws. Although the Jobs Act does not provide that securities offered under Regulation A are explicitly exempt, it does have a provision requiring the Comptroller General to conduct a study on the impact of Blue Sky laws on offerings made under Regulation A. Securities offered and sold to “qualified purchasers,” to be defined under NSMIA, or on a national securities exchange would be “covered securities” and exempt from Blue Sky laws.

Modifying Registration Thresholds

Currently, Section 12(g) of the Exchange Act requires an issuer with assets in excess of $1 million and a class of security held by more than 500 shareholders of record to register such security with the SEC and, therefore, become subject to the reporting requirements of the Exchange Act. The Jobs Act amends the registration thresholds to require registration only when an issuer has:

  • either 2,000 or more shareholders of record, or 500 shareholders of record who are not accredited investors, and
  • assets in excess of $10 million.

Exceptions to “Held of Record” Definition

Further, the Jobs Act amends the definition of “held of record” to exclude securities held by persons who received the securities pursuant to an employee compensation plan in transactions exempted from the registration requirements of the Securities Act. It also directs the SEC to adopt rules providing that securities acquired under the crowdfunding exemption are similarly excluded.

Increased Thresholds for Community Banks

The Jobs Act amends Section 12(g) of the Exchange Act by increasing the shareholder registration threshold in the case of an issuer that is a bank or a bank holding company to 2,000 persons. The bill also makes it easier for banks and bank holding companies to deregister and cease public company compliance requirements by increasing the threshold for deregistration for those entities from 300 persons to 1,200 persons.

Implementation of the Jobs Act

SEC Rulemaking and Studies

The Jobs Act directs the SEC to adopt rules implementing certain provisions of the act as well as to conduct a number of studies and report back to Congress.

SEC Concerns

A number of SEC Commissioners, including Chairman Mary Schapiro, have publicly expressed concerns on the balance between enhancing capital formation and the reduction in investor protections. The Jobs Act does not affect Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Act and adds some additional securities fraud remedies, so issuers should continue to be scrupulous about compliance with their disclosure obligations.

Full Text of the Jobs Act

The Jobs Act was enacted on April 5, 2012. The text of the act is currently available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr3606enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr3606enr.pdf.

Article By:

 of

Department of Labor (DOL) Issues Model Notices to Employees Describing Health Insurance Exchanges

SchiffHardin-logo_4c_LLP_www

Deadline to Provide Notices is October 1, 2013

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), the new health care reform law passed in 2010, requires many employers to notify their employees of the availability of health coverage under the new health insurance exchanges that are required to be operational effective January 1, 2014. All employers subject to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act must provide this notice, regardless of whether the employer currently offers health coverage to its employees. Employers must provide the notice to all full and part-time employees (but not to dependents).

On May 8, 2013, the Department of Labor (DOL) issued model notices for employers to use in satisfying these requirements. A copy of the notice for employers that offer health coverage is available here and a copy of the notice for employers that do not offer health coverage is available here.

Employers are free to modify the model notices provided that the notices, as modified, continue to satisfy the content requirements set forth in the PPACA. Employers must provide the notices to their existing employees no later than October 1, 2013. Employees hired on or after October 1, 2013 must receive the notice no later than 14 days after their hire date.

The notices may be provided by first class mail or electronically if the DOL’s electronic disclosure rules are met.

Model COBRA Notice

Additionally, the DOL updated its model COBRA notice for use by employers in notifying employees of their rights to continue (after certain losses of coverage) coverage under the employer’s health plan. The updated model notice contains information about the new health insurance exchanges. A copy of the updated model notice is available here.

California Requires Many Foreign Corporations To Send Annual Financial Statements To Shareholders

AM logo with tagline

California is a net exporter of corporate charters, but it remains home to many corporations. As a result, the California Corporations Code has a preternatural concern with foreign corporations.

One example is Section 1501(a) which requires the board to cause an annual report to be sent to shareholders.  This report must include a balance sheet as of year end and an income statement and statement of cash flows for the year.  The statute doesn’t require that the statements be audited, but if an independent accountant has issued a report, then that report must be sent along as well.  If there is no report, then the report must include a certificate of an authorized officer that the statements were prepared without audit from the books and records of the corporation.  If the corporation has fewer than 100 holders of record (determined in accordance with Section 605), the financial statements need not be prepared in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles if the statements reasonably set forth the assets and liabilities and income and expense of the corporation and disclose the accounting basis used in their preparation.

The report must be sent not later than 120 days after the close of the fiscal year and must be sent at least 15 days (or, if sent by third class mail, 35 days) prior to the annual meeting of shareholders held during the following fiscal year.  Cal. Corp. § 1501(a)(1) & (2).

This requirement applies to domestic corporations, a term that embraces any corporation formed under the laws of California.  Cal. Corp. § 1501(g).  Thus, it includes corporations not formed under the General Corporation Law. See Cal. Corp. Code § 167.  However, a corporation with less than 100 holders of record (determined in accordance with Section 605) may include a bylaw provision that waives the annual report requirement.

The statute also applies to any foreign corporation if the corporation has its principal executive offices in California or it customarily holds meetings of its board in California.  Cal. Corp. § 1501(g).

Publicly traded companies are not exempted per se from this requirement.  However, corporations with an outstanding class of securities registered under Section 12 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 will satisfy the annual report requirement if they comply with Rule 14a-16 (17 C.F.R. § 240.14a-16).  Cal. Corp. § 1501(a)(4).  [Note that this statute purports to include future amendments and this may give rise to a constitutional problem, see Why Incorporation May Be Unconstitutional.]

Here is a flow-chart describing the application of the statute.  This is probably a good time to remind readers that this blog does not provide legal advice.  There are other requirements in Section 1501 (including possible quarterly reporting requirements) that are not covered in today’s post.  Moreover, there are other nuances that I’ve not mentioned.

Article By:

 of

The Legal Challenge to the SEC’s Conflict Minerals Reporting Regulations

Dickinson Wright Logo

In the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act, the United States Congress required, inter alia, the SEC to promulgate regulations requiring certain manufacturers to trace the sources of tin, tantalum, tungsten and gold that are contained in products they manufacture or contract to manufacture to allow them to report yearly to the SEC whether the products are “not DRC [Democratic Republic of the Congo] conflict free.” Conflict free was defined by Congress as meaning the products do not contain minerals that finance or benefit violent armed groups in the DRC or adjoining countries. Congress required the SEC action because “it [was] the sense of Congress” that the exploitation of conflict minerals from that region was financing armed groups that engaged in “extreme levels of violence” creating “an emergency humanitarian situation.”

Various industry groups lobbied heavily against the passage of the Dodd-Frank Act and later submitted comments during the SEC’s rulemaking challenging the proposed regulations’ due diligence and reporting obligations as unduly burdensome and costly. After considering the comments, the SEC, where it would not run afoul of the Congressional mandate, did reduce some of the burdens that would be imposed on industry. However, the SEC acknowledged that compliance with Congress’s intent precluded reduction of other burdensome aspects of the regulations. The SEC promulgated the regulations in August 2012.

In October, 2012, the National Association of Manufacturers, along with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, commenced a legal challenge to the conflict minerals regulations. Since then, voluminous briefs have been filed by NAM and the SEC along with briefs by numerous interested groups. These briefs outline the parameters of the dispute and suggest that NAM faces an uphill battle.

The crux of the industry’s challenge is that the SEC failed to properly quantify the benefits and costs associated with the regulations and thereby acted arbitrarily and capriciously in promulgating them. NAM claims the reporting requirements will not aid the DRC and could cripple the region economically. It also claims that the SEC failed to agree to certain revisions that would have lessened the burdens and costs on business, like carving out a de minimus exemption for manufacturers whose products used only trace amounts of conflict minerals and predicating a burdensome due diligence requirement on whether a manufacturer had “reason to believe” that their products contained conflict minerals that may have originated in the DRC as opposed to whether the products “did originate” there. NAM asks the court to strike the entire regulation and send the SEC back to square one.

The SEC responds that it was not its responsibility to quantify the benefits of the regulations, noting that Congress had made that calculation and had determined that the benefits justified the reporting requirement Congress mandated. In fact, the SEC admitted it could not quantify the benefits because it lacked data to do so. Rather it performed a qualitative analysis. It also defends its rejection of NAM’s proposed revisions that would have reduced the costs of compliance. The SEC noted, and various members of Congress agreed, that Congress had considered and rejected the de minimus exemption because it would defeat the purpose of the rule. Congress concluded that thousands or millions of trace amounts can add up to a significant amount, the trade in which would undercut the rule’s purpose of stopping the flow of money to armed insurgents in the region. The second NAM proposal was rejected because in the SEC’s view, it would encourage willful blindness by industry. That is, if a business encountered a red flag suggesting the sources of its minerals were not conflict-free, it would investigate no further, so as to avoid a determination that they did originate there.

An interesting issue concerns the regulation’s imposition of the reporting requirements not just on manufacturers but also to those who contract for the manufacture of goods. NAM believes that this extension of the reporting requirements is contrary to the express language of Dodd-Frank. It supports its position through application of rules of construction routinely used in interpreting statutes and its argument is logical. However, former and current members of Congress came to the SEC’s aid on this issue claiming in their brief that they intended to include those who contract for the manufacturer of goods, again to prevent exemptions that would significantly undercut what the regulations sought to achieve.

Oral arguments are scheduled for May 15, 2013. It will be very interesting to see how receptive the panel from the DC Circuit is to NAM’s arguments. Asking the court to scuttle the entire regulation, the parameters of which Congress as a matter of policy framed, makes NAM’s challenge all the more difficult.

Article By:

 of

Takeover Code Amendments Extend the Rights of Pension Scheme Trustees

Morgan Lewis logo

Amendments include new requirements regarding offerors’ intentions, documents provided to trustees, trustees’ opinions on offers, and publication of agreements between offerors and trustees.

On 22 April, the Code Committee of the UK Panel on Takeovers and Mergers (the Panel) published response statement RS 2012/2 (the Response Statement), which introduces amendments to the City Code on Takeovers and Mergers (the Code).[1] The Response Statement follows a consultation to consider extending the rights of trustees of offeree company pension schemes. Broadly, the amendments to the Code provide the following:

  • An offeror is required to state its intentions with regard to the offeree company’s pension scheme.
  • Certain information is required to be published in the offer document or otherwise provided to pension scheme trustees.
  • Trustees are allowed to provide an opinion on the effects of an offer on the company’s pension scheme.
  • Agreements between an offeror and pension scheme trustees that relate to pension scheme funding may be required to be published if they are material.

Background

On 19 September 2011, significant changes were made to the Code, including an extension of the obligations of the offeror and offeree in relation to information to be provided to, and the obligation to publish opinions of, the offeree company’s employees and employee representatives. During the Panel’s consultation on those changes, the pensions industry lobbied significantly for similar provisions to be added to the Code in relation to trustees of pension schemes. Proposed amendments to the Code were published in public consultation paper PCP 2012/2 (the PCP)[2] on 5 July 2012, and a period of consultation followed. The Response Statement sets out the Panel’s response to that consultation and the resulting changes to be made to the Code. Although many of the changes will be adopted as originally proposed in the PCP, certain modifications have been made.

In determining the new regime, the Panel has been mindful that the intended effect of the changes is to create a framework within which the effects of an offer on an offeree company’s pension scheme can become (i) a debating point during the course of the offer and (ii) a point on which the relevant parties can express their views.

Application of New Code Provisions to Defined Benefit Schemes

The new provisions of the Code are limited to funded pension schemes sponsored by the offeree (or any of its subsidiaries) that (i) provide pension benefits (either in whole or in part) on a defined benefit basis—and (ii) have trustees (or managers, in the case of non-UK schemes). The Code provisions are not limited to UK pension schemes and apply to all such schemes, regardless of size or materiality in the context of the offeree’s group.

The new provisions do not apply to pension schemes that provide pension benefits only on a “defined contribution” basis, as the Panel believes that the provisions of the Code granting rights to employees and employee representatives already create an appropriate framework for discussion in relation to the impact of an offer, and the offeror’s intentions, in relation to such schemes.

Publication of Offeror’s Intentions in Relation to Pension Scheme

An offeror will now be required to include in the offer document a statement of its intentions with regard to relevant offeree pension schemes, including with respect to employer contributions and arrangements for deficit funding, benefits accruals for current members, and the admission of new members to the scheme. However, the Panel has not required that the offeror include a statement on the likely repercussions of its strategic plans for the offeree company on relevant pension schemes. Similarly, the Panel has confirmed that such statements do not need to include an assessment of the future ability of the offeree company to meet its funding obligations to its pension scheme.

The Panel also confirmed that the general rule under Note 3, Rule 19.1 of the Code will apply to statements of intention made in respect of pension schemes. This means that an offeror will be considered to be committed by any such statements for 12 months after the offer ends (or such other period of time as is specified in the offeror’s statement), unless there has been a material change of circumstances.

Under the PCP, the Panel originally proposed to require the offeree to include in its offeree circular its views on the effects of the implementation of the offer—and the offeror’s strategic plans for the offeree—on the offeree’s pension schemes. However, following the consultation, the Panel did not make these changes but did confirm that the offeree board may include its views on these subjects in the offeree circular should it wish to do so.

Provision of Information to Pension Scheme Trustees

The amendments to the Code provide that trustees of the offeree company’s pension scheme will be entitled to receive the same documents that offerors and offerees are required to make available to employee representatives. These documents include the following:

  • The announcement that commences the offer period
  • The announcement of a firm intention to make an offer
  • The offer document
  • The offeree board circular in response to the offer document
  • Any revised offer document
  • The offeree board circular in response to any revised offer document

Pension Scheme Trustees’ Opinion on the Offer

Under the revised Code, pension scheme trustees will have the right to require the offeree’s board of directors to publish the trustees’ opinion on the effects of the offer on the pension scheme, and the offeree will be obliged to notify such trustees of this right at the commencement of the offer. As with employee representatives’ opinions, if the trustees’ opinion is received in good time, the opinion must be appended to the offeree board circular. If it is not received in good time, it must be published on a website, with such publication to be announced on a Regulated Information Service.[3] The Panel has confirmed that the trustees’ opinion may cover more than the impact of the offer on the benefits that the scheme provides to members (and other matters to be included in the offeror’s statement in the offer document) and that the opinion may also extend to the trustees’ views on the impact of the offer on the post-offer ability of the offeree company to make future contributions to the pension scheme (i.e., the strength of its funding covenant).

Unlike employee representative opinions, the offeree will only be responsible for the costs incurred in the publication of the trustees’ opinion and not for any other costs incurred in relation to its preparation or verification.

Agreements Entered into Between an Offeror and Pension Scheme Trustees

The revised Code also contains certain provisions relating to any agreements between an offeror and the trustees of an offeree pension scheme, for example, in relation to the future funding of that scheme. Following the consultation, the Panel determined that any such agreements should be treated in the same manner as any other offer-related agreement, with certain variations. As a result, the amendments contain the following requirements for agreements between offerors and pension scheme trustees:

  • Where any such agreement is a material contract for the offeror within the meaning of the Code, it should be published on a website in the same manner as any other material contract.
  • Where such an agreement is not material, but is nevertheless referred to in the offer document, there will be no requirement to publish it on a website.
  • Where such an agreement relates only to the future funding of the pension scheme, it will be excluded from the general prohibition on offer-related agreements contained in Rule 21.2(a).[4]

Pensions Regulator

The Panel has confirmed, following discussions with the UK Pensions Regulator, that there will be no obligation under the Code for the offeror or offeree to send offer-related documentation to the Pensions Regulator, nor will there be any obligation on the Panel to notify the Pensions Regulator of takeover offers. Accordingly, it is for the offer parties (and any other interested parties) to decide whether they wish to engage with, or seek clearance of the offer from, the Pensions Regulator.

Entry into Force

The amendments introduced by the Response Statement will take effect on 20 May 2013, and an amended version of the Code will be published on this date.

[1]. View the Response Statement here.

[2]. View the PCP here.

[3]. The UK Financial Conduct Authority has published a list of information services that are approved Regulated Information Services in Appendix 3 of the Listing Rules, which is available here.

[4]. The Panel, however, emphasised that any obligations or restrictions on the trustees regarding any other offeror or potential offeror would not be permissible.

Article By:

 of

Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN) Liability And Private Equity Firms

DrinkerBiddle

Last month’s decision out of the Delaware District Court in Woolery, et al. v. Matlin Patterson Global Advisers, LLC, et al. was an eye opener for private equity firms and other entities owning a controlling stake in a faltering business.  Breaking from the norm, the Court refused to dismiss private equity firm MatlinPatterson Global Advisers, LLC (“MatlinPatterson”) and affiliated entities from a class action WARN Act suit alleging that the 400-plus employees of Premium Protein Products, LLC (“Premium”), a Nebraska-based meat processer and MatlinPatterson portfolio company, hadn’t received the statutorily-mandated 60 days advance notice of layoffs.

According to the plaintiffs, Premium’s performance began to decline in 2008 and, upon the downturn, the defendants became more and more involved in Premium’s day-to-day operations, including by making business strategy decisions (e.g., to enter the kosher food market), terminating Premium’s existing President, and installing a new company President.  Things got bad enough that, in June 2009, the defendants decided to “furlough” all of Premium’s employees with virtually no notice and close the plant.  The defendants then, in November 2009, converted the furlough to layoffs, and Premium filed for bankruptcy.  According to the plaintiffs, Premium’s head of HR raised WARN Act concerns back in June, when the decision to close the plant and furlough the employees was made, and the defendants ignored the issue.

With Premium in bankruptcy, the plaintiffs, unsurprisingly, turned to MatlinPatterson and the other defendants as the targets of their WARN Act claim, asserting that they and Premium were a “single employer.”  The Court then applied the Department of Labor’s five-factor balancing test, namely (1) whether the entities share common ownership, (2) whether the entities share common directors or officers, (3) the existence of de facto exercise of control by the parent over the subsidiary, (4) the existence of a unity of personnel policies emanating from a common source, and (5) the dependency of operations between the two entities.  This test often favors private equity firms, and on balance it did so in Woolery too, with the Court finding that the plaintiffs had made no showing as to three of the five factors.  The Court nevertheless refused to grant the defendants’ motion to dismiss, holding that the complaint alleged that the defendants had exercised de facto control over Premium and then essentially giving that factor determinative weight.

No one should be surprised by the decision given the plaintiffs’ allegations, which had to be accepted as true at the motion to dismiss stage.  They presented an ugly picture of a private equity firm dictating the most critical decisions (to close plant, layoff employees) and then attempting to duck the WARN Act’s dictates. The decision is nevertheless a cautionary tale for private equity firms and at first blush it presents a catch 22: (a) do nothing and watch your investment sink or (b) get involved and risk WARN Act liability.

So what is a private equity firm, lender or majority investor to do?  Obviously, the best scenario is to build in the required 60-day notice period or, if applicable, utilize WARN Act exceptions, including the “faltering company” and “unforeseen business circumstances” exceptions.  Even where that’s not possible, private equity firms and other controlling investors need not take a completely hands off approach.  They would, however, be best-served (at least for WARN Act purposes) to do the following:

  • Provide only customary board-level oversight and allow the employer’s officers and management team to run the employer’s day-to-day operations
  • Although Board oversight and input can occur, continue to work through the management team on major decisions, including layoffs and potential facility closures
  • Avoid placing private equity firm or lender employees or representatives on the employer’s management team
  • Have the employer’s management team execute employment contracts with the employer, not the private equity firm or lender, and have the contracts, for the most part, create obligations only to the employer
  • Allow the employer to maintain its own personnel policies and practices, as well as HR oversight and function

What the courts are primarily concerned with in these cases are (a) a high degree of integration between the private equity firm or lender and the actual employer, particularly as to day-to-day operations, and (b) who the decision-maker was with regard to the employment practice giving rise to the litigation (typically the layoff or plant closure decision).  Private equity firms and lenders that have refrained from this level of integration have had, and should continue to have, success in avoiding WARN Act liability and returning the focus of the WARN Act discussion to the actual employer.

Article By:

 of

Is Your Smartphone Costing You Thousands Each Month in Billable Time?

Client Logo

Back in the early 2000s, I had a friend who’d recently purchased a new-fangled flip-style mobile phone. Oohing and aahing, I asked if he loved all the things he could do with it. “I can play games on it and check the news, stock prices, sports scores, and weather” he lamented, “but I can’t figure out how to just make a phone call.”

Flash forward a decade to the ubiquity of smartphones, with their sleek design, shiny screens, and bright, colorful icons. Nearly every lawyer, young and old, has one. Newsletters and blog posts extol the smartphone’s positive impact on a lawyer’s productivity. New apps appear in the store almost daily to assist with note taking, dictation, file creation and storage, calendaring, practice management, and time tracking, to name a few. Bar associations and professional organizations host conferences, meetings, and CLEs to offer practical training on making the most of tablets, smartphones and cloud services.

Despite this, when lawyers use their smartphones for the most basic of tasks – talking on the phone – they struggle with capturing and billing that time. Are you one of them? Ask yourself the following questions:

  • Do I spend a lot of billable time on the phone?
    Surveys show that lawyers spend nearly one-quarter of their billable time on the phone, with over 70% percent of that time spent on the desktop phone in their office.
  • Do I use my mobile smartphone for work calls when I’m out of the office?
    If you do, you’re not alone. Lawyers report spending an average of 23 percent of their time working outside the office, during which time over 85 percent make work calls on smartphones.
  • Have I struggled finding good smartphone apps to use for work?
    Although a majority of lawyers responding to the 2012 ABA Legal Technology Survey use their own personal devices for work (making them part of the growing Bring Your Own Device, or BYOD, movement), two-thirds have never downloaded a general business app, while even fewer have tried a legal-specific smartphone app.
  • Have I ever forgotten or been unable to bill my time spent on the phone?
    You’re human and you’re busy, so you’re probably like most lawyers, who estimate that they lose a conservative five billable hours related to phone calls each month. Some of these hours are for forgotten, undocumented, or untimed calls. Others come from time spent reconstructing the call history for billing purposes, an arduous and inaccurate task.

If you answered yes to these questions, then that ubiquitous productivity tool – your smartphone – may make you more productive but still not help your bottom line. At an average hourly billable rate of $250, an office of four lawyers stands to lose nearly $5,000 every month, just on billable phone time.

With numbers like these, it’s never been more important that attorneys have access to timekeeping solutions that make it simple to track billable hours while on the phone. There are many time-trackers on the market, but common complaints about them include:

  • They’re too complex and full of bells and whistles that I will never use” (just like my friend with the fancy new flip phone).
  • “They require the use of a timer, which I often forget to start and stop.”
  • “They don’t capture time on the desktop phone, where I make the majority of my calls.”
  • “There’s too much manual entry required to create detailed records. Postponing the entry does nothing to alleviate the chore of billing reconciliation at the end of the month.”

When evaluating the options, consider these requirements:

  • Choose a solution that’s so simple, compliance is a snap.
    Look for a solution that is compatible with both mobile and desktop phones. From here, you can easily capture the call details and duration as it happens, no matter which device you’re using. In seconds, you can ensure that every minute spent on the phone is billed.
  • Simplify the billing reconciliation process with 24×7 access to the captured call data.
    A worthwhile solution will reclaim the hours previously spent digging through voicemail, paper phone messages, calendar appointments, and mobile call logs to reconstruct billable phone time. The internet is the perfect platform for the billing staff to gain access to captured call data from any browser whenever and wherever needed.
  • Impress your clients with descriptive, auditable billing records.
    Capturing comprehensive call details as they happen will improve your billing accuracy and show your clients exactly what they’re paying for. The more detail you can provide, the more they will trust your records, and the more likely you will be to collect on each invoice. Greater detail will help speed up your billing reconciliation time as well.
  • Minimize training time and increase usage by ensuring that the app is virtually identical on any device.
    If the process of capturing call information is the same on both office and mobile phones, it will quickly become a habit, no matter which device is in use. Consolidating the records generated from every device in a single, intuitive place online will help billing staff easily export and create line items for invoices.

While many time-trackers offer bells and whistles that sound great on paper, their complexity leaves many lawyers feeling like my friend who couldn’t figure out how to make a call on his new flip phone. Focus on simplicity to find a telephone timekeeping solution that you’ll actually use. An app that works automatically on any device will eliminate lost revenue for billable phone time, provide an audit trail for your clients, and allow your lawyers to be both productive and profitable.

Article By:

 of

The Good Angel Investor (Part 1): Doing the Deal

Michael Best Logo

At a time when lean startups often require considerably less than $1 million dollars to develop the proverbial minimum viable product and even validate the same with some customers, angel investors are playing an increasingly important role in startup financings.  And that’s a good thing, particularly in places outside of the major venture capital centers, where institutional venture capital is scarce.

Most startups successfully launched with angel capital will want to tap deeper pools of capital later on, often from traditional venture capital investors.  That being the case, entrepreneurs and their angel investors should make sure that the structure and terms of angel investments are compatible with the likely needs of downstream institutional investors.  Herewith, some of the issues entrepreneurs and angels should keep in mind when they sit down and negotiate that first round of seed investment.

  1. Don’t get hung up on valuation.  Seed stage opportunities are difficult to put a value on, particularly where the entrepreneur and/or the investor have limited experience.  Seriously mispricing a deal – whether too high or too low – can strain future entrepreneur/investor relationships and even jeopardize downstream funding.  If you and your seed investor are having trouble settling in on the “right” price for your deal, consider structuring the seed round as convertible debt, with a modest (10%-30%) equity kicker.  Convertible debt generally works where the seed round is less than one-half the size of the subsequent “A” round and the A round is likely to occur within 12 months of the seed round based on the accomplishment of some well-defined milestone.
  1. Don’t look for a perfect fit in an off-the-shelf world.  In the high impact startup world, probably 95% of seed deals take the form either of convertible debt (or it’s more recent twin convertible equity) or “Series Seed/Series AA” convertible preferred stock (a much simplified version of the classic Series A convertible preferred stock venture capital financing).  Unless you can easily explain why your deal is so out of the ordinary that the conventional wisdom shouldn’t apply, pick one of the two common structures and live with the fact that a faster, cheaper, “good enough” financing is usually also the best financing at the seed stage.
  1. On the other hand, keeping it simple should not be confused with dumbing it down.  If the deal is not memorialized in a mutually executed writing containing all the material elements of the deal, it is not a “good enough” financing.  The best intentioned, highest integrity entrepreneurs and seed investors will more often than not recall key elements of their deal differently when it comes time to paper their deal – which it will at the A round, if not before.  And the better the deal is looking at that stage, the bigger those differences will likely be.
  1. Get good legal advice.  By “good” I mean “experienced in high impact startup financing.”  Outside Silicon Valley, the vast majority of reputable business lawyers have little or no experience representing high impact entrepreneurs and their investors in financing transactions.  When these “good but out of their element” lawyers get involved in a high impact startup financing the best likely outcome is a deal that takes twice as long, and costs twice as much, to close.  More likely outcomes include unconventional deals that complicate or even torpedo downstream financing.  This suggestion is even more important if your deal is perchance one of those few that for some reason does need some custom fitting.
  1. Finally, a pet peeve.  If you think your startup’s future includes investments by well regarded institutional venture capital funds, skip the LLC tax mirage and just set your company up as a Delaware “C” corporation.  If you want to know why, ask one of those “experienced high impact startup lawyers” mentioned in point 4 above.
Article By:

 of