Category: Corporate law

Appeal in Home Depot Data Breach Derivative Action Results in Settlement of Corporate Governance Claims

Home Depot Data BreachSnatching victory of a sort from the jaws of defeat, shareholders who brought a derivative action alleging that the 2014 Home Depot data breach resulted from officers’ and directors’ breaches of fiduciary duties have reached a settlement of those claims. As previously reported, that derivative action was dismissed on November 30, 2016.  That dismissal followed on the heels of dismissals of derivative actions alleging management breaches of fiduciary duties in connection with the Wyndham and Target data breaches. Despite that discouraging precedent, the Home Depot shareholder plaintiffs noticed an appeal from the trial court’s order of dismissal.  The parties subsequently resumed settlement discussions that had broken off in the fall of 2016, on the eve of argument and decision of Home Depot’s motion to dismiss.  On April 28, 2017, the parties submitted a joint motion disclosing and seeking preliminary approval of the proposed settlement.  If approved, the proposed settlement would result in dismissal of the shareholders’ appeal and an exchange of mutual releases, thereby terminating the fiduciary claims arising from the Home Depot data breach.

The Stipulation of Settlement filed with the court specifies that Home Depot will agree to implement the following nine changes to its information governance practices (which are a checklist of best practices for any business):

  1. Document the duties and responsibilities of the Chief Information Security Officer (“CISO”);

  2. Periodically conduct Table Top “Cyber Exercises” to prepare for emergencies and train personnel to respond to data security threats;

  3. Monitor and periodically assess key indicators of compromise on computer network endpoints;

  4. Maintain and periodically assess the Company’s partnership with a dark web mining service to search for confidential Home Depot information;

  5. Maintain an executive-level committee focused on the Company’s data security;

  6. Receive periodic reports from management regarding the amount of the Company’s IT budget and what percentage of the IT budget is spent on cybersecurity measures;

  7. Maintain an Incident Response Team and an Incident Response Plan;

  8. Maintain membership in at least one Information Sharing and Analysis Center (ISAC) or Information Sharing and Analysis Organization (ISAO); and

  9. Retain their own IT, data and security experts and consultants as they deem necessary.

It is unknown whether Home Depot had independently contemplated implementing any of these practices in the aftermath of the breach.

The proposed settlement assigns credit for the changes to the derivative action and, by making them part of a court-approved settlement, does allow for judicial enforcement in the event that Home Depot fails to comply with the remediation program.  More significantly, wrapping these practices into the derivative action settlement provides a justification for the shareholders’ counsel to request a fee award of $1,125,000.  Significantly, Home Depot continues to deny any wrongdoing, and the Settlement Agreement expressly states that it may not be construed as evidence or admission of fault, liability or wrongdoing.

The amount of the requested fee award, which is relatively modest by the standards of large scale derivative litigation, suggests that this may have been a nuisance value settlement of an appeal with slim prospects for success.  Given the prior failures of derivative claims in data breach cases, it remains to be seen whether this settlement will encourage shareholders in future data breach cases to attempt to buck the odds by asserting derivative claims.

ARTICLE BY Kevin M. McGinty of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

©1994-2017 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.

Golden Leash Rule, Say-on-Pay, Form 10-K Summaries: Proxy Season Guide to 2017

SEC proxy seasonAs another year comes to a close, it is time for public companies to become acquainted with the securities law and business developments of the past year to position themselves for success in 2017. Below is a summary of current and anticipated changes that may impact reporting requirements and disclosure regulations for the upcoming 2017 proxy season, along with a review of the 2016 proxy season.

NEW FOR 2017

Frequency Votes for Say-on-Pay

After Jan. 21, 2011, public companies were required to hold an advisory vote regarding the frequency of which say-on-pay votes would occur, which could not be in excess of every six years. Therefore in 2017, many companies will need to include an agenda item for the frequency vote at their annual meeting. Following the vote, companies will need to include the results of the frequency for which say-on-pay votes will be held in their Form 8-K under Item 5.07(b).

SEC Approves NASDAQ’s “Golden Leash Rule”

In July 2016, the SEC approved NASDAQ’s “Golden Leash Rule.” This rule requires listed companies to disclose material terms of any agreement between a director or director nominee and any entity or person other than the company, regarding any amount of compensation or payment related to the director’s service on the board or the director nominee’s candidacy. The “Golden Leash Rule” requires annual disclosure in the companies’ proxy or on its website. The “Golden Leash Rule” became effective Aug. 1, 2016.

Form 10-K Summaries

In July 2016, the SEC issued an interim final amendment to the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act, creating Item 16 on Form 10-K allowing companies the option to include a summary of the information included in the Form 10-K. While no previous rule prohibited summaries, most issuers simply included a table of contents with hyperlinks to items in their reports. This rule provides issuers some flexibility when preparing the Form 10-K.

CEO Pay Ratio Disclosure Rule

For the first fiscal year beginning on or after Jan. 1, 2017, companies will need to comply with the SEC’s long-anticipated final rule implementing Section 953(b) of the Dodd-Frank Act, which requires all public companies to disclose the pay ratio between their CEO’s annual total compensation and the annual total compensation of the companies’ “median” employee. However, companies will not be required to include pay ratio disclosures in their proxy statements until 2018. With the exception of smaller reporting companies, emerging growth companies, foreign private issuers, and registered investment companies, all reporting companies will have to disclose their pay ratio. The pay ratio disclosure must be included in any filing that requires executive compensation disclosure under Item 402 of Regulation S-K, which includes registration statements, proxy and information statements, and annual reports on Form 10-K. Even though uncertainty may loom around the viability of Dodd-Frank with President-elect Donald Trump’s transition underway, companies should continue to prepare pay ratio disclosures in anticipation for the 2018 proxy season. The Final Pay Ratio Disclosure Rule is available here.

PROXY ADVISORY FIRM UPDATES

Glass Lewis Updates

Glass, Lewis & Co. (Glass Lewis) recently published its 2017 Proxy Season Guidelines. The guidelines include a number of changes, a summary of which is outlined below.

Director Overboarding. Beginning February 2017, Glass Lewis will implement its policy regarding director board commitments. Glass Lewis will issue negative recommendations for directors that serve on more than five public company boards and company executives that serve on a total of two public company boards, including his or her own.

Governance for Newly Public Companies. For newly public companies, Glass Lewis will recommend against directors and members of governance committees who adopt provisions causing shareholders’ rights to become “severely restricted indefinitely.” Provisions such as anti-takeover mechanisms, including poison pills or classified boards, along with exclusive forum and fee-shifting provisions will all be considered for such recommendations.

Board Self-Assessment. Glass Lewis has updated its views regarding board evaluations to account for director skills and how those skills align with company strategy, as opposed to merely relying on tenure and age. Glass Lewis has further taken the stance that shareholders are better equipped to measure the board’s composition and approach to corporate governance.

Gender Pay Disclosure. Glass Lewis issued a new policy for reviewing companies’ gender pay equity, on a case-by-case basis. Upon review, Glass Lewis will generally recommend proposals requesting greater disclosure where inattention and inadequate policies expose the company to risk.

In its update, Glass Lewis also noted its support for proxy access and the management of environmental and social risks.

A copy of the full Glass Lewis Proxy Season Guidelines is available here.

ISS Updates

Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) also updated its proxy voting policy guidelines for 2017, which will affect shareholder meetings taking place after Feb. 1, 2017. The guidelines set forth a number of updates:

Director Overboarding. Similarly to Glass Lewis, ISS will also implement its policy regarding director overboarding, establishing the threshold for overboarding to five public boards for directors who are not company executives. The policy for overboarding of company executives threshold will remain at three total boards, including his or her own.

Undue Restrictions. A new ISS policy recognizes shareholders’ ability to amend bylaws as a fundamental right. Under the policy, ISS will vote against or withhold recommendation for members of the governance committee if the company’s charter imposes “undue restrictions” on shareholders’ rights to amend the bylaws. ISS also recognized complete prohibitions on binding shareholder proposals and share ownership requirements beyond the requirements of Rule 14a-8 as being undue restrictions on shareholders’ rights. ISS will generally recommend against governance committee members whose company has any of these provisions in its charter as well.

Unilateral Governance Changes. ISS updated its policy for governance of newly public companies to include consideration for any reasonable sunset provision when issuing recommendations against directors who have adopted charter or bylaw amendments that ISS views as materially adverse to shareholder rights or that implement a multi-class capital structure affording unequal voting rights prior to or in connection with an IPO.

Shareholder Ratification of Non-Employee Director Pay Program. As a result of recent highly publicized lawsuits involving excessive non-employee director compensation, ISS will consider qualitative factors such as the presence of problematic pay practices relating to director compensation and the quality of disclosures surrounding director compensation, when evaluating whether to recommend ratification programs regarding non-employee director compensation.

A copy of the full ISS 2017 Proxy Voting Guidelines is available here.

2016 IN REVIEW

During the 2016 proxy season, proxy access remained the predominant topic for the second consecutive year. In fact, shareholders submitted over 200 proxy access resolutions during the 2016 proxy season. The SEC’s 2010 proxy access rule, Rule 14a-11, provided that a shareholder was eligible to nominate proxy access candidates if the shareholder held at least 3 percent of the voting power for at least three years and was not prohibited from proposing a candidate under law or the company’s governing documents. Although this rule was vacated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in 2011 for being arbitrary, many shareholder proposals are still based on both Rule 14a-11 and the SEC’s amendments to Rule 14a-8. At the end of June 2016, over 250 companies, with 190 S&P 500 firms, established proxy access rights through voluntary adoptions and negotiated withdrawals. As a result, proxy access proposals continue to drive change and mold standard market terms.

As companies grew in 2016, so did the need to properly assess, implement and maintain internal controls over financial reporting (ICFR) pursuant to Rule 13a-15. ICFR is the process by which public companies provide reasonable assurance to the public that its financial statements are prepared in accordance with GAAP and are ultimately reliable. To comply, the SEC requires an annual management report of the company’s ICFR effectiveness, including disclosure of any material weakness that may create a possibility for the company to be unable to promptly detect or prevent a material misstatement on its financial statements, in Form 10-K. Companies should implement accounting controls designed to mitigate financial reporting risk and regularly evaluate any deficiencies. This is particularly important in light of revenue reporting rules issued by the Financial Accounting Standards Board becoming effective for public companies in 2018 and as new accounting standards are issued.

The comment periods have expired for other proposed changes to incentive-based compensation arrangements, the securities transaction settlement cycle, disclosure of payments by resource extraction issuers, pay-for-performance, hedging disclosure, and clawbacks. These changes have not been finalized. At this time, there is no anticipated date for implementation of these policies, so there will be no effect on 2017 filings.

OTHER SECURITIES LAW DEVELOPMENTS

Exemptions to Facilitate Intrastate and Regional Securities Sales and Offerings

In October 2016, the SEC adopted its final rule modernizing the existing intrastate offering framework by implementing amendments to Rule 147 under the Securities Act of 1933. The SEC’s amended Rule 147 provides a safe harbor under Section 3(a)(11) for issuers organized and principally doing business within a single state to offer and make sales of securities to resident purchasers of the same state. The amendments allow companies to raise money from investors within their state without simultaneously registering the offer and sale at the federal level.

The SEC’s new Rule 147A will expand the safe harbor to issuers that maintain a principal place of business in a different state from where it is incorporated and permit issuers to offer and make sales to residents in the state where it operates. Under Rule 147A, issuers will also be able to make offers across state lines, but sales remain limited to residents of the state.

The final rule also repealed Rule 505 and expanded Rule 504 of Regulation D, by increasing the aggregate amount of securities that may be offered and sold in any 12-month period from $1 million to $5 million. Additionally, the final rule disqualifies certain bad actors from participation in offerings under Rule 504. Through these amendments, the SEC sought to facilitate issuers’ capital raising efforts and provide additional investor protections.

Rule 147 and new Rule 147A will be effective on April 20, 2017. The amendments to Rule 504 will be effective on January 20, 2017. The removal of Rule 505 will be effective on May 22, 2017. All other amendments will be effective on May 22, 2017. The final rules are available here.

Supreme Court Decides First Insider Trading Case in Decades: Salman v. United States

In December 2016, after 20 years without a decision regarding the scope of insider trading, the Supreme Court held that even when no financial or tangible benefit is received, insider trading may arise when a tipper makes a “gift” of confidential information to a friend or relative, in Salman v. United States, No. 15-628 (U.S. Dec. 6, 2016). Although the tipper received no physical benefit from providing the information to the tippee, the Supreme Court found that the personal benefit received from bestowing a “gift” of confidential information to a family member or friend was enough for conviction, thus paving a smoother path for prosecutors seeking conviction.

The Supreme Court relied on the “personal benefit test” established in the seminal 1983 case Dirks v. SEC, 463 U.S. 646 (1983) but declined to clarify the scope of the “personal benefit test.” Additionally, the Supreme Court expressly rejected the Second Circuit’s decision in United States v. Newman, 773 F.3d 438 (2d Cir. 2014), which held that the government must prove that a tippee knew an insider received a personal benefit in exchange for disclosing confidential information, and any benefit received must be sufficiently consequential. While the Supreme Court only narrowly expanded the “personal benefit test” in Salman, it rejected the government’s argument that a gift to “anyone” satisfies the “personal benefit test” potentially providing for a distinction between disclosures to friends and family and those to market professionals. The Salman opinion can be found here.

Mutual Funds/Investment Companies: Rule 22e-4 and Swing Pricing

In October 2016, the SEC adopted its final Rule 22e-4. This new rule requires mutual funds and registered open-end management investment companies, including open-end exchange-traded funds (ETFs) to create a liquidity risk management program, in order to reduce the risks associated with fund redemption obligations. The liquidity risk management program must include periodic review of a fund’s liquidity risk, classification of the liquidity of fund portfolio investments, determination of a highly liquid investment minimum, a limitation on illiquid investments, and board oversight. The rule also permits open-end funds, excluding ETFs and money market funds to use swing pricing, which allows funds to adjust their net asset value per share in order to pass on the costs associated with trading activity to purchasing and redeeming shareholders. The rule requires board approval and periodic review of the funds’ swing factor upper limit and swing threshold. Companies will need to comply with the new Rule 22e-4 beginning on or after Jan. 17, 2017 and access to swing pricing will become available Nov. 19, 2018. The final rule is available here.

Investment Company Reporting Modernization

In October 2016, the SEC adopted new forms and amendments to modernize the reporting and disclosure requirements for registered investment companies. Form N-PORT, a new monthly reporting form requires registered funds other than money market funds to provide portfolio-wide and position-level holdings data. Reporting requirements include data related to the pricing of portfolio securities, information regarding repurchase agreements, securities lending activities, counterparty exposure, terms of derivatives contracts, and portfolio level and position level risk measures, to the SEC on a monthly basis. Form N-CEN will require registered investment companies to annually report certain census-type information as well. Finally, the SEC is adopting amendments to Forms N-1A, N-3 and N-CSR to require certain disclosures regarding securities lending activities. Collectively, these amendments will enhance investors’ ability to use and analyze data to ultimately make more informed investment decisions. The rule becomes effective Jan. 17, 2017, and most funds will be required to begin filing new Forms N-PORT and N-CEN after June 1, 2018. The final rule is available here.

Universal Proxy

In October 2016, the SEC proposed changes to the proxy rules requiring the use of universal proxy cards during a contested election. During a proxy contest, the proposal would require proxy contestants to provide shareholders a proxy card with the names of management and dissident director nominees listed. Similar to voting in person, the proposal would give shareholders the ability to vote for their preferred combination of board candidates through proxy. The proposal aims to remedy shareholders’ current inability to combine nominees to create their own slate during a contested election. The comment period for the proposal ends Jan. 9, 2017.

ARTICLE BY Susan B. Zaunbrecher & Jacqueline I. Painter of Dinsmore & Shohl LLP
© 2016 Dinsmore & Shohl LLP. All rights reserved.

Corporate Law on Election Day: Hairsplitting The Polls

poll corporate lawIn recognition of today’s election, today’s post is about polls, poles and Poles.

The General Corporation Law uses the word “poll” exactly once – in describing the duties of the inspectors of election at meetings of shareholders. Section 707(b) of the Corporations Code provides that the inspector(s) must determine, among other things, “when the polls shall close”.  Oddly, the statute makes no mention of determining when the polls open.  In contrast, Section 231 of the Delaware General Corporation Law does not require the inspectors to determine either the opening or closing times of the polls.  The statute requires only that the date and time of the opening and the closing of the polls for each matter upon which the stockholders will vote at a meeting be announced at the meeting.

But what exactly is a “poll”?  The word itself is derived from a word referring to hair.  Thus, Ophelia in her madness and grief sings of her late father:

He never will come again.

His beard was as white as snow,

All flaxen was his poll.

He is gone, he is gone,

And we cast away moan.

Hamlet, Act IV, Scene 5.  Metonymically, “poll” was used to refer to a person’s head.  Eventually, a counting of heads became known as a “poll” and the process of counting became “polling”.

Some readers may recall that the word “poll” also appears in the word “deed poll”.  As explained by Sir William Blackstone, this use of “poll” reflects its original tonsorial meaning:

 A deed made by one party only is not indented, but polled or shaved quite even; and is therefore called a deed-poll, or a single deed.

Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book II, Ch. 20.

Poll has at least three homophones, each with its own etymologic origins.  When referring to a stake in the ground, “pole” can be traced to the Latin word, palus, which has the same meaning.  Greek, however, is the source of “pole” when it is used to refer to the top of the world (e.g., the South Pole).  The Greek word, πόλος, refers to an axis on which something turns.  Finally, the people of Poland are not surprisingly known as “Poles”.  In this case, the Polish word Polanie is the source.  It translates as the people of the field.

ARTICLE BY Keith Paul Bishop of Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP

© 2010-2016 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP

SEC Whistleblower Awards: Can You Hear Whistles Blow? Valued At More Than $100 Million, You Bet You Can!

Some very loud whistles have been blowing across corporate America since 2011 – whistles valued at $107 million, in fact. The United States Securities and Exchange Commission announced on August 30, 2016, that since its whistleblower program began in 2011, they have awarded more than $107 million total to 33 individuals who voluntarily provided the SEC with original and useful information that led to a successful enforcement action. Whistleblower awards can range from 10 percent to 30 percent of the money collected when the SEC’s monetary sanctions in a matter exceed $1 million.

The SEC encourages employees to report suspected wrongdoing, because they, according to Acting Chief Jane Norberg, “are in unique positions behind-the-scenes to unravel complex or deeply buried wrongdoing.” And, last year alone, employees responded by providing nearly 4,000 tips to the agency. With this kind of incentive from the SEC and other government agencies, as well as a growing number of successes in whistleblower lawsuits, it is more important than ever for companies to get advice on a regular basis. Moreover, companies must be strategic and proactive in their approach to implementing an effective whistleblower protection and anti-retaliation system.

Key elements of an effective whistleblower protection and anti-retaliation system include:

  1. Clear and visible leadership commitment and accountability. This is truly the most important piece of the puzzle. Without sincere support from the top, no internal whistleblower program can succeed.

  2. The creation of a true “speak-up” organizational culture focused on prevention, including encouraging employees to raise all suspicions and issues quickly and insuring the fair resolution of such issues.

  3. Independent, protected resolution systems for employees and third-parties who believe they are experiencing retaliation as a result of raising concerns.

  4. Specific training to educate all employees about their rights and available protections (including both internal and external programs).

  5. Specific training for managers who may receive complaints or information from employees, requiring the manager to be considerate of the employee making the report, to be diligent, and, most importantly, to act on the information with no corporate tolerance of the “just telling me as a friend, not as a manager” excuse.

  6. Internal monitoring and measurement of corporate compliance efforts and the effectiveness of the speak-up and non-retaliation culture, without contributing to the suppression of employee reporting.

  7. Independent auditing to determine if the whistleblower protection and anti-retaliation system is actually working.

Post written by Denise K. Drake of Polsinelli LLP.

Profits Interest as Equity-Based Incentive: Keeping Your Team Motivated

LLC, Business Team, Equity based incentiveSay you own one-half of an LLC that is taxed as a partnership. You and your partner invested the initial capital that was necessary to get the business up and running, and you both built the business with the help of a few key employees. With the business still in the growth phase, you want to make sure that you motivate and retain these key employees who are helping you grow your company. What should you do? You and your partner might want to consider causing the LLC to issue the key employees a profits interest in the LLC.

What is a Profits Interest?

From a tax-standpoint, an LLC can issue two basic types of membership interests: capital interests and profits interests. A capital interest is an interest in a partnership or LLC taxed as a partnership that entitles the recipient to share immediately in the proceeds of liquidation. A capital interest normally results from a capital investment and provides recipients with participation in current and future equity value, a share of income, and distributions. When someone receives a capital interest in an LLC in exchange for a corresponding capital contribution, this is typically a tax-free event. When someone receives a capital interest in exchange for services, this is taxable compensation to the service provider.

Profits interests are distinct from capital interests, providing no current right to share in the proceeds of liquidation as of the date of grant. Instead, they typically only provide a holder with the right to share in those profits of the business that arise after the recipient acquires the interest. The primary goal of issuing profits interests is typically to give a service provider the ability to participate in the growth of the enterprise without incurring tax on the receipt of the interest, and to enjoy at least some long-term capital gain treatment (instead of ordinary income treatment) on proceeds they receive on a sale of the LLC or similar liquidity event.

Structuring a Profits Interests

Usually, as long as the profits interest is structured properly and capital accounts are booked up on entrance of the profits interest member, the IRS should not treat the grant of a vested or unvested profits interest as a taxable event. Most practitioners design profits interests so that they meet IRS safe harbor standards for ensuring profits interest treatment. These standards include:

  1. The profits interest must not relate to a substantially certain and predictable stream of income from the entity’s assets, such as income from high quality debt securities or a net lease,

  2. The recipient of the profits interest must not dispose of it within two years of receipt, and

  3. The profits interest may not be a limited partnership interest in a publically traded partnership.

The issuing entity’s partnership or operating agreement should be closely examined upon the issuance of a profits interest. Things to consider with respect to newly issued profits interests include whether such recipients should have voting rights similar to that of members who contributed capital to the enterprise. Additionally, the agreement should be updated to clearly define how the profits interests will be valued relative to capital interests under current buy-out or redemption provisions. Oftentimes, practitioners ensure that a profits interest has no right to share in liquidation proceeds on the grant date by valuing the company as of that date, and providing that a profits interest holder will not share in distributions except to the extent a threshold established based on the value is exceeded. Also, booking up capital accounts is generally critical to ensuring that the profits interest does not entitle the recipient to any proceeds of liquidation if the entity was liquidated on the grant date.

To the extent the profits interest issued is unvested at the time of issuance, most practitioners opt to make an 83(b) election to ensure tax-free treatment upon receipt. When a profits interest is issued, it has no value. If the profits interest is vested, there is no question that it is taxed at the time of receipt, at $0. Unvested property is taxed at the time of vesting, on the property’s value at the time of vesting. Hence, if the profits interest has appreciated in value since the time of grant, then there would be ordinary income at the time of vesting. To avoid this treatment, recipients of profits interests can make an 83(b) election, which is an election to treat the profits interest as vested for tax purposes at the time of grant and to be taxed on the value of the profits interest at the time of grant. There is some IRS guidance that states that an 83(b) election is not necessary. However, that issue is beyond the scope of this article and a so-called “protective 83(b) election” is usually still made to assist in easing the minds of profits interest holders who want to ensure that the interest is not taxable when it vests.

Tax Consequences of a Profits Interest

The recipient of a properly structured profits interest is not taxed on receipt because the IRS views the profits interest’s value as $0. Because the profits interest is treated as having no value, there is no deduction that corresponds to the issuance of the profits interest for the entity. The profits interest will be treated as having a $0 basis, and no capital account. Going forward, the recipient should be treated as an equity owner under the terms of the governing partnership or operating agreement for the entity starting on the date on which the profits interest was granted. The recipient should receive a K-1 and pay taxes on income that is passed through from the entity. Capital accounts should be adjusted accordingly, just as is the case for any other member.

The Future of Profits Interests

The history of how profits interests are taxed is riddled with controversy. In addition, politicians continue to discuss the desirability of profits interests (also sometimes called “carried interests”), in the context of private equity and hedge funds. However, the foregoing analysis reflects the IRS’ stated position on profits interests based on several Revenue Procedures that were issued to address the topic pending additional guidance. Until the IRS or Department of Treasury issues additional guidance, the current rules will generally remain applicable to small businesses and startups who are issuing profits interests.

Overall, profits interests are a unique and creative way to give people who are rendering services to the LLC or partnership a stake in the enterprise. They can generally be viewed as similar to options, except that they also provide the holder with a stake in the losses of the entity. With the increasing use of LLCs for startup operations, the use of profits interests as an incentive compensation mechanism has grown in the past years.

ARTICLE BY Katie K. Wilbur of Varnum LLP

© 2016 Varnum LLP

The Effect of “Brexit” on Tax-Qualified Plans

The decision by British voters in a June 23, 2016 referendum to leave the European Union has significantly affected both the equity and debt segments of international financial markets. As with other market dislocations, the decision has also affected US tax-qualified plans, since they invest in those markets as a source of funding and use corporate bond rates for a variety of derivative purposes. The effects differ, however, between defined benefit (DB) and defined contribution (DC) plans.tax-qualified plan, Brexit

Potential Effects of Brexit on DB Plans

In the case of DB plans, Brexit potentially has implications for funding levels, lump sum payments, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) premiums, and financial accounting results—all of which are the responsibility of the plan sponsor (rather than participants).

Specifically, the vote has triggered a decline in interest rates—including corporate bond rates—that may have at least a short-term adverse effect on the funded status of many DB plans, since (i) corporate bond rates are the proxy used to determine the present value of liabilities for minimum funding purposes, and (ii) a decrease in rates triggers an increase in liabilities (present value inversely goes up as interest rates go down).

This effect will be mitigated somewhat, however, since DB plans generally can use a 25-year average of interest rates (with a 90% floor) for funding purposes, which tends to “smooth out” periodic spikes like Brexit. Still, if interest rates (which are already at historically low levels) decline further or continue to be depressed by the aftershocks of Brexit, more headwinds for DB plans seeking to improve their funded status will be created.

By contrast, DB plans must use a market rate of interest—that is, without “smoothing”—for lump sum, PBGC variable premium, and financial accounting purposes. As a result, any downward trajectory of interest rates triggered by Brexit will more directly affect DB plans for these three purposes. Thus, for example, the dollar amount of lump sums paid to employees will increase as rates fall (that is, lump sum present values grow inversely to interest rates).

This effect on the calculation of lump sum payments may be delayed somewhat, since most plans use a “look back” date for the related interest rates (such as the rate in effect two months before the start of the plan year in which the lump sum was paid). Nevertheless, if interest rates stay low or decline, these lower rates ultimately will roll into effect for lump sum calculation purposes. Plan sponsors that are otherwise so inclined may view this as an impetus to offer lump sum windows or annuity buyouts—sooner rather than later (and before any lower interest rates roll into effect). This is especially true of annuity buyouts, since insurance companies tend to use rates for premium calculations that are even more conservative (i.e., lower) than the corporate bond rates used under ERISA.

Similarly, the PBGC variable rate premium is essentially determined using the same rate as is used for lump sums, but without a lag. This will increase the liabilities that form the basis for determining the amount of the variable premium.

Finally, the use of spot fixed income rates for financial accounting purposes will have an adverse effect on a company’s balance sheet to the extent they trigger an increase in reportable plan liabilities. The impact will be much more pronounced than is the case with minimum funding considerations, since the use of spot rates does not allow the impact of currently falling rates to be offset by the prior year increases used in a “smoothing” approach.

Potential Effects of Brexit on DC Plans

In the case of DC plans, participants generally bear the primary risk (and reward) of their investment choices, as allowed by ERISA Section 404(c). Thus, they will bear the risk of both declining bond prices and more volatile financial markets generally. Plan fiduciaries may want to consider alerting participants to the issues raised by Brexit, the possible impact on plan investments, the advisability of staying the course in turbulent markets, diversification considerations, and any other Brexit-related issues relevant to participation in the DC plan, but should be careful to avoid providing specific investment recommendations or advice that may be subject to ERISA’s fiduciary obligations.

Conclusion

In the case of both DB and DC plans, the fiduciary responsible for selecting investments (such as an investment committee) should continue to monitor developments in the financial markets and react as appropriate, in light of the plan’s investment policy statement and the general fiduciary requirements of ERISA. Federal courts and the US Department of Labor have consistently stated that ERISA fiduciaries are not held to a standard of omniscience, but they are required to exercise “procedural prudence” in selecting and monitoring plan investments. This sort of prudence would include adhering to the processes and other mandates established in the fiduciary’s charter or other governing document.

How Will the Exit of the United Kingdom from the European Union (“Brexit”) Affect U.S. Corporations Doing Business in the UK?

withdrawal from the EU brexitOn June 23, 2016, the UK voted in a referendum to leave the EU. The UK government will now initiate the procedure under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty leading to the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. The UK will be immediately excluded from the European Council and the Council of Ministers, and a negotiation period of two years will commence during which the terms of its withdrawal and of its future relationship with the EU will be determined. No member state has initiated this procedure before, and so it is impossible to predict what this future relationship will be. Furthermore, the UK’s relationships with non-EU states will have to be independently reestablished, as it will no longer be entitled to rely on the bilateral treaties with those states it enjoyed whilst an EU member state.

This Client Alert will focus on the likely impact of Brexit on the laws of the UK influencing key business areas for U.S. corporations doing business in the UK.

M&A

The UK Companies Act 2006, which embodies UK law as it relates to both public and private companies, has been significantly influenced by EU directives, however, it is highly unlikely that Brexit will result in any changes to UK company law, so the basic mechanics of acquisitions and disposals of UK companies will remain the same. The vast majority of M&A transactions in Europe take place between private companies, either by means of an acquisition of shares or of assets, and Brexit will not affect the laws governing such transactions.

The EU Takeover Directive harmonises public company takeovers in the EU and is modelled on the UK Takeover Code, which regulates takeovers of public limited companies in the UK. Brexit is therefore unlikely to have any significant impact on takeovers.

The EU Cross-Border Mergers Directive enables a private or public company in one EU member state to merge with a company in another member state. Brexit means that UK companies will cease to benefit from this regime.

Brexit may possibly affect competition law in the longer term. Currently anti-competitive agreements and abuses of dominant positions in the UK are policed by the Competition and Markets Authority under laws and procedures which mirror EU regulations. In the case of mergers, however, larger transactions are dealt with by the European Commission on a “one-stop-shop” basis to save the parties having to file in several states. Brexit could lead to a decoupling of UK competition law from that of the EU and the end of the “one-stop-shop,” at least for UK mergers.

Commercial Contracts

Existing contracts which continue beyond Brexit could be affected in a number of ways, for example:

  • Depending on how the contract is drafted, Brexit might constitute a “material adverse change,” entitling the parties to terminate;
  • Provisions which have EU territorial scope, such as restrictive covenants or exclusive sales rights, will no longer include the UK;
  • If import duties are imposed as a result of Brexit, contractual pricing mechanisms may operate to shift the burden of such additional costs onto one of the parties making performance more costly.

New contracts should take such matters into account, and now that Brexit is a reality, parties should negotiate how its consequences will be dealt with and who bears the risk.

Debt and Equity Financing

Similar considerations apply to financing transactions on Brexit as apply to M&A deals and commercial contracts. Generally the effect on such transactions will be insignificant.

In the case of loan facility documents, EU territorial clauses may be affected by the UK’s departure from the EU, and Brexit may trigger an event of default in the case of particularly harsh “material adverse change” provisions. The imposition of tariffs and duties and the consequences of market disruption as a result of Brexit might lead to lenders passing on increased costs to borrowers. Brexit might also cause a UK borrower to make an inadvertent misrepresentation (for example, that it is in compliance with EU laws and regulations). It is difficult to see how Brexit would prejudice English law security taken under a security document (with the one exception of intellectual property rights – see below).

Equity financing documents, such as placing and underwriting agreements and prospectuses, will be similarly affected. In addition, the possible loss of the “passporting” regime for the sale and distribution of securities throughout the European Economic Area (EEA) would adversely affect fundraising outside the UK. On an IPO or bond issue, issuers should consider a Brexit-related risk factor disclosure in their prospectuses, especially if their business is likely to be adversely affected by Brexit.

Funds and Asset Management

Brexit could have potentially significant adverse consequences for funds and asset managers in the UK.

Initially, UK fund managers will be treated as non-EEA alternative investment fund managers and lose their managing and marketing passports into the EU. Currently, thanks to the “passport” regime, under the Alternative Investment Funds Management Directive (AIFMD), both UK and non-UK funds can be managed by UK-regulated fund managers operating out of the UK, and such fund managers can market and distribute the fund throughout the EU. Such fund managers will cease to qualify for a passport on Brexit. Under current rules, they could only market such funds as alternative investment funds to EEA investors under local private placement arrangements, if applicable.

Also, as undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS) must be EU domiciled and managed by an EU management company, Brexit could be potentially disastrous for a UK-domiciled UCITS fund.

UCITS funds are subject to strict investment rules, including a maximum investment of 30 percent of their assets in non-UCITS collective investment schemes. Brexit will result in many such funds having to alter their investment mandates to take account of the UK no longer being a member of the EU. Similarly, even non-UCITS funds, whose investment policies are to invest in EU securities, will have to readjust their portfolio investments in UK companies or amend their policies.

Employment

The vast majority of UK employment law is “home grown,” such as protection against unfair dismissal, the right to a payment on redundancy, protection against sex, race, nationality, ethnic origin and disability discrimination, and the right to a minimum wage. EU directives have contributed to UK employment law in areas such as the protection of employment rights on the transfer of undertakings, the obligation to consult with employees in the case of mass redundancies, working time limits and minimum holiday pay.

These EU-derived employment laws have become so integral to UK employment law that it is unlikely that Brexit will affect them.

In fact, previous UK governments have tended to “gold plate” EU directives and regulations (for example, the Working Time Directive allows full-time employees 20 days of paid annual leave, but the UK application of that law allows 28 days). It is possible that, outside the EU, a future UK government will review certain aspects of the legislation which have not sat well with UK businesses since their inception, including in particular, the weekly limit on working hours, regulations relating to agency workers and work councils and even those in respect of collective consultation with employees in general.

As in the case of commercial contracts, employment agreements with EU territorial scope may be affected (for example, in the case of covenants not to compete or solicit customers or employees in the EU after termination of employment).

Brexit may deny the UK access to the “single market” of the EU, including the right of free movement of workers between the UK and the remaining EU member states. This will adversely affect the ability of UK companies to manage a cross-border skilled and experienced workforce.

Trade

Many UK trade laws derive from EU law such as the following:

  • Product safety
  • Consumer protection
  • Laws on unfair contracts
  • The rights of commercial agents
  • On-line shopping
  • Payment services
  • Laws on hazardous chemicals
  • Certification of electrical and medical devices

Most of these laws have become enshrined in UK law for many years and are unlikely to be affected by Brexit. However some, which derive from secondary legislation, would lapse unless a post-Brexit government were to preserve them (for example, the regulations governing consumer protection from unfair trading, general product safety, and consumer contracts in respect of “distance” sales of goods and services to consumers).

The withdrawal of the UK from the EU “single market” could entail import duties on the export of products and services from the UK to the EU. Also institutions, such as banks, trading companies and professional firms, such as lawyers and accountants, would cease to enjoy the single market in the provision of services, which could lead to the restructuring or even relocation of their EU-based offices.

Intellectual Property

As one of the largest creators of intellectual property in the EU, the UK and its entrepreneurial innovators could be significantly affected by Brexit.

The Community Trade Mark would cease to apply in the UK. This would require trade marks to be registered both in the UK and as CTMs, incurring additional costs and potentially adversely affecting existing trade mark licenses and security over trade marks.

Currently UK patents are protected and registered under UK legislation, and so Brexit will not affect them (or European patents designating the UK). From 2017, a new EU patent system, the Unitary Patent, is scheduled to be launched, with its new court, the Unified Patents Court, expected to take its seat in London. Brexit would exclude UK patents from this unified system, and London will lose its new court.

Data Protection

The UK law on data protection is based on EU law but dates back to 1998, and so it is unlikely to be significantly affected by Brexit. There are current EU proposals to strengthen the law under the General Data Protection Regulation, and it is likely that the UK will now adopt this.

Post-Brexit cross-border transfers of personal data to the UK are unlikely to be automatically permissible from EU member states. The UK would have to apply to the European Commission for a decision that its data protection standards are adequate to protect the privacy of EU residents (which means the EU standards would have to be met in any event). In the recent case of Schrems, the European Court of Justice held that the United States had not complied with European data protection standards (as Facebook had allegedly transferred consumers’ data to the NSA) and abolished the “safe harbour” rules which had hitherto permitted such transfers from the EU to the United States.  If the EC were to deny or restrict the terms of its adequacy decision, the UK could find itself in a similar position to that of the United States after Brexit, which could seriously adversely affect technology providers with UK-based data centres offering services to EU clients.

Conclusion

The legal consequences of Brexit are difficult to quantify.  Much will depend on the exit terms negotiated between the UK and the remaining EU member states and the status of the continuing relationship between the UK and the EU after Brexit.  Such matters will not be known for at least two years.  In the interim the status quo will survive.

ARTICLE BY Jonathan Maude, Richard L. Thomas & Sam Tyfield of Vedder Price

© 2016 Vedder Price

Congress Just Says No—to Banking Services for Marijuana Businesses

marijuana businessesYet another attempt has failed to pass legislation shielding banks that provide services to marijuana-related businesses from regulatory action or other penalties. Late last week, the US House of Representatives appeared likely to approve an amendment to the House Financial Services and General Government appropriations bill (the Amendment) that would prevent financial institutions from being penalized if they provided services to state-sanctioned marijuana-related businesses. A similar amendment had already been approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee and appeared likely to be approved by the US Senate.

Under recently passed procedures, the House Committee on Rules must approve all amendments to appropriations bills. On June 20, Representative Denny Heck (D-WA) and Representative Ed Perlmutter (D-CO) filed the bipartisan Amendment with the Committee on Rules. They emphasized that, without banking services, marijuana businesses are forced to conduct business and pay salaries in cash, which increases the risk of money laundering and theft. The Committee on Rules declined to consider the Amendment for a vote, effectively blocking it from further consideration in connection with the appropriations bill.

The Amendment is the latest effort by members of Congress to bring some certainty to banks that wish to provide banking services for marijuana-related businesses. Although both the US Department of Justice and the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network have provided guidance that allows banks to provide services to legal marijuana businesses, marijuana is still illegal under federal law, and banks have been reluctant to rely on such guidance, which they generally have concluded provides insufficient regulatory and law enforcement certainty.

Although marijuana businesses that seek traditional banking services will not see any relief in the current appropriations process, a number of bills that have been introduced in the Senate and House remain that would offer clarity for banks that wish to offer banking services to marijuana businesses. Even though none of those bills have passed the initial stages of the legislative process, these efforts, which are generally bipartisan in nature, are expected to continue and may at some point be successful. In any event, the legal marijuana industry is expected to continue to grow, and more states are likely to authorize recreational and medical use of marijuana. Meanwhile, the issue of providing legal certainty to banks that wish to offer banking services to marijuana business will continue to be debated.

ARTICLE BY Melissa R. H. Hall of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP

Copyright © 2016 by Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP. All Rights Reserved.

Attorneys Facing An Uphill Battle In Litigation Should Consider Option Value When Arguing Valuation

Let me tell you a sad story; Joe owned a marketing company and earned a prosperous living for several years. Joe’s business was growing rapidly and all seemed right with the world. Then a trusted employee left Joe’s firm, taking with him half of Joe’s customers in violation of his non-compete agreement. Joe’s business slowly suffered and lost customers until eventually his firm declared bankruptcy.

Joe sued his former employee and asked for damages related to the value of his firm. Joe’s attorney argued to the court for compensation based on the value of Joe’s firm that was destroyed by the employee. Yet the attorney left out one critical question when arguing the case; how should the law account for the fact that Joe’s business was growing rapidly until the employee left?

Perhaps Joe had several big accounts that he might have been able to sign had the employee not engaged in unfair trade practices. Without taking these factors into account, Joe’s attorney is under-representing the value of Joe’s claim and leaving compensation on the table for no reason.

In finance, this idea of the possibilities that could plausibly occur in the future is called an embedded option or a real option and it is extremely useful in a variety of cases from divorce proceedings and business bankruptcies to merger disputes and matters of economic harm. In the scenario above, Joe’s firm had the ability to potentially continue to grow and become even more successful than it was at the time before Joe’s employee left. Hence the damage done to Joe is greater than simply the lost historical value of the firm. He has also lost the possibility of much more value in the future.

The crux of modern asset valuation is based on a concept called the time value of money. Essentially the idea is that because money received in the future is worth less than money received today, we can value assets or a business based on their associated cash flows and an appropriate discount rate. This approach forms the basis of everything from stock valuation on Wall Street to proper methods for computing interest rates in bankruptcy. This facet of valuation is well understood. But what about the future opportunities or chances of cash flows that are uncertain?  That’s what embedded options address.

The concept of embedded options might seem abstract or even too nebulous for many judges to buy into in a court case, but the reality is that real options have significant value and are often a subject of serious financial negotiations. Particularly for small firms, real options are often important and serve as the basis for various types of convertible debt and warrant grants.

As a finance professor and frequent consultant to companies on matters of asset valuation and financial forecasting, I have long taken it for granted that the techniques used in the finance profession were well understood and universally applied across many other industries including the law. I was very surprised to learn when I started doing expert consulting work, this is not the case. Lawyers often neglect to ask for damages based on real options in their cases. This leaves an important tool out of the litigation toolbox.

In discussing real options thus far, it might seem like they are primarily useful for parties alleging damages, yet they can also be useful for defendants as well. In particular, defendants need to understand how real options are valued and also understand the four appropriate metrics for calculating economic harm as it relates to options (compensating variation, equivalent variation, Paasche indices, and Laspeyres indices). I’ll talk more about these in a future column though.

When valuing real options, there are various statistical techniques that can be used. The math is not necessarily important here, but the concepts are. Essentially, real options increase in value in situations where there is greater uncertainty, and when interest rates in the broader economy rise. Those conditions make real options an exciting tool in today’s courts. With the Fed finally starting to raise interest rates, real options should become marginally more valuable. More importantly, situations with significant amounts of uncertainty lead to greater volatility in intrinsic asset prices.

These volatile situations are often the very situations that lead to court cases for attorneys – a business deal that went wrong leads to a bankruptcy but could have led to a hugely successful company, a merger agreement could result in substantial cost savings for both firms or substantial value destruction for investors and is being challenged by shareholders, a wrongful death case for an individual in the prime of their lives leaves so many possible futures unexplored. Thanks to new statistical techniques and greater computing power, these situations and others can be effectively modeled through computer simulations and valued by economists in ways that would have been unimaginable a decade ago.

Representing clients fairly and to the best of one’s ability in court is the foremost duty of an attorney. To do that, attorneys need to understand the tools of business and the cutting-edge techniques being used in asset valuation. Failing to use these tools is not only a disservice to clients, but a severe hindrance to the attorney as well. In a competitive legal market, the Joes of the world will flock to those attorneys that free themselves to position their clients for maximum success in court.

Article By Dr. Michael McDonald of Fairfield University Dolan School of Business

© Fairfield University Dolan School of Business

Exclusive Study Analyzes 2015 IPOs

Proskauer’s Global Capital Markets Group presents the third annual IPO Study, a comprehensive analysis of U.S.-listed initial public offerings in 2015 and identification of three-year comparisons and trends of U.S.-listed initial public offerings over the same period.

The study examines 90 U.S.-listed 2015 IPOs with a minimum initial deal size of $50 million, and includes industry analysis on health care; technology, media & telecommunications; energy & power; financial services; industrials and consumer/retail. The study also includes a focus on foreign private issuers. It also makes year-over-year comparisons of extensive data about deal structures and terms, SEC comments and timing, financial profiles, accounting disclosures, corporate governance and deal expenses.

Underlying the study is the global Capital Markets Group’s proprietary IPO database, which is a valuable resource for sponsors and companies considering an IPO as well as for IPO market participants and their advisors.

Download Proskauer’s 2016 IPO Study

Article By Frank Lopez of Proskauer Rose LLP
© 2016 Proskauer Rose LLP.