The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the ABA’s Upcoming Spring 2012 CLE National Institutes:
Learn and network at these in-person,full-day or multi-day seminars held live in various locations across the country that draw lawyers from across the nation.
The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the ABA’s Upcoming Spring 2012 CLE National Institutes:
Learn and network at these in-person,full-day or multi-day seminars held live in various locations across the country that draw lawyers from across the nation.
An article regarding Shareholder Disputes written by David J. Treacy and John M. Spires of Dinsmore & Shohl LLP was recently published in The National Law Review:
Small and medium-sized businesses provide valuable goods, services, and jobs. Often, they are run as corporations in which the controlling officers and directors also are the major shareholders. Frequently, friends and family found these businesses together. But even successful businesses owned by friends and family aren’t immune to problems resulting from circumstances and relationships that change over time.
Shareholders may start the business together, but wish to leave at different times based on life events. New, valuable employees might want to be owners, too. Business deals may be made with companies in which some, but not all, of the directors or shareholders overlap. In situations like these, interests can collide.
Successful businesses last a long time, and change is inevitable. But preparation on the front end may eliminate big problems that could arise down the road. While there are few “one size fits all” rules, we suggest some best practices to consider when forming a business.
Avoid the corporate divorce before it happens. A little advance planning can go a long way.
As seen in Business Lexington.
© 2012 Dinsmore & Shohl LLP.
The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the ABA’s Upcoming Spring 2012 CLE National Institutes:
Learn and network at these in-person,full-day or multi-day seminars held live in various locations across the country that draw lawyers from across the nation.
Recently The National Law Review published an article by Martina Maier and Philipp Werner of McDermott Will & Emery regarding the European Commissions Investigation of a German Law Loophole:
Under German law, companies may escape cartel fines by undertaking an internal restructuring. The German competition authority has indicated a willingness to reallocate such cases to the European Commission, which can impose a fine on the corporate group regardless of any internal restructuring. Commission officials speaking at a conference have suggested recently that the Commission would be willing to take over cartel cases from EU Member States, even at a late stage in the proceedings, in order to fine undertakings for their anti-competitive behaviour.
The German competition authority can impose fines on undertakings that have violated European competition law by forming a cartel. Under German law, if the undertaking ceases to exist, for example by merging with another undertaking, only in exceptional circumstances can the legal successors be held liable for the violation of Article 101 TFEU. For the legal successor to bear any liability for the anti-trust infringement, the restructured company must be identical, or nearly identical, to the company that committed the infringement, such as in the case of a mere change of the company’s name or its legal structure.
This has created a loophole that can be exploited by internally restructuring the legal entity that has committed the infringement so it ceases to exist and no other legal entity within the group is (nearly) identical. Companies may thus escape cartel fines by, for example, redistributing their assets to affiliated companies within the corporate group, or by merging with a sister company, even if the original company’s assets remain within the same group and under the control of the same ultimate parent company. This loophole has been confirmed explicitly by the German Supreme Court. Although Germany is currently amending its competition legislation, it is not yet clear whether the proposed changes will be sufficient to solve the problem.
In the European Union, due to the broad interpretation of the concept of an “undertaking”, as well as the possibility of holding parent companies jointly and severally liable, the European Commission has broad discretion when it comes to imposing fines on parent companies, so an internal restructuring does not present a solution for infringing companies.
According to the Commission Notice on cooperation within the Network of Competition Authorities, reallocation of cases should normally take place within a period of two months, starting from the date of the first information sent by the relevant national competition authority to the European Competition Network. In general, the competition authority that is dealing with a case at the end of the two month period should continue to handle the case until completion of the proceedings. Reallocation of a case after the two month period should only occur where the facts known about the case change materially during the course of the proceedings. After the two month period, the Commission should in principle initiate proceedings only in exceptional cases.
If the Commission initiates proceedings, the relevant authorities of the Member States are relived from their competence to apply Article 101 TFEU and Article 102 TFEU. This means, once the Commission has opened proceedings, national competition authorities cannot act under the same legal basis against the same agreement or practices by the same undertaking on the same relevant geographic and product market.
Despite these procedural concerns, the Commission seems to be willing to accept a late reallocation of cases in cooperation with the German competition authority. It is not clear how this principle could or will be extended to other Member States and whether it could be applied under different circumstances where a Member State is prevented from fining a cartelist due to the application of a national law.
© 2012 McDermott Will & Emery
Recently The National Law Review published an article from Risk Management Magazine a publication of the Risk and Insurance Management Society, Inc. (RIMS) regarding Search Warrants in the Office:
When armed government agents enter your office, seize your computers and talk to your employees, the business day has gotten off to a rough start. It only gets worse when the news shows video of agents in raid jackets carrying your eye-catching, focus group-tested logo. As the days go on, you are busy reassuring customers, vendors and employees that despite early reports and comments made by the government and your competitors, it is all going to be fine and you are going to get back to business as usual.
Presented with this hypothetical situation, many adopt a similar response: it won’t happen to me. But any business that operates in a heavily regulated area or partners with any federal agency needs to appreciate that government inquiries are simply part of operating in that space. The FBI is not the only investigative agency; it is just as likely that the Environmental Protection Agency or the Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General will be at the front desk with a warrant in hand and a team ready to cart away the infrastructure and knowledge of your business. Will you be ready?
Good planning as part of a regular annual review can help settle nerves, avoid costly mistakes, and put you in the best defensive position should that fateful day come when the feds show up at your door. Follow this five-part plan and you will be much better off.
Just as the agents did the morning before the search, you need to assemble your response team. The government has specialized people with individual roles and you need to have the same type of team. Some people on your team are there because you want them there. Others make the team because they sit at the reception desk or close to the front door. Either way, they are now on the same team.
The point person on the team has to be the in-house counsel. The agent may not let the receptionist place a series of calls, but the receptionist should be permitted to call the in-house counsel to notify her of the situation. From that point on, the command center shifts from the front desk to counsel’s desk.
The next call should be made from the company’s general counsel to outside criminal counsel. A general litigation or M&A background may be well suited for the company’s general needs, but on this day, the needs are quite different. Outside criminal counsel needs to begin the dialogue with the agent and the prosecutor, and should send someone to the scene if possible.
The response team should also include the heads of IT, security and communications. The IT officer must make sure that, as the search is conducted, intrusion into the system can be minimized so that the business may continue operation. If the IT officer is not permitted to assist with the search, it is critical that he observes all actions taken by the government related to any IT matters. This observation may be valuable at some point in the future if computer records are compromised or lost. This is just as important for information that may tend to show some violation of the law as it is for information that may support defense or a claim of actual innocence. The Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section of the Criminal Division has produced a manual for the search and seizure of computer records and an expert can help evaluate law enforcement’s compliance with its own approved procedures.
If your company is a manufacturer or scientific production company where the question at issue may be the quality, characteristics or integrity of a product, it is important that you demand an equal sample from the same source and under the same conditions as those taken by the seizing agents. This is important so that your own experts can review a similar sample for your own testing in defense. If this is not possible given the type of product seized, your outside counsel will work with prosecutors and agents to assert your rights to preserve evidence for future testing. Just as the IT expert can be a helpful observer, a technical expert who observes the government sampling can also provide valuable insight into issues related to the sampling that may make a world of difference at some time in the future.
The communications expert is the final member of the team, but no less significant. She can be an important point of contact for media inquiries that will inevitably follow. It is vital to be able to communicate to your customers that you are still performing your daily support and that, as you address this matter, you will never take your eye off the customer’s needs and deadlines. With a disciplined response, many companies will survive a search warrant and government investigation. This process will help ensure that your customers are there for you when you get through this difficult time.
Depending on the size of your company, all of the response team roles may be performed by one or two people. Think of the function of the tasks that need to be accomplished instead of job titles alone. The other factor that you must consider at the outset is what role will these people have in the case going forward. Try and identify people who can perform these tasks but will be outside the case itself. If you know that the company lab has been under investigation, the lab director may be a target of the investigation. If that is the case, you do not want to have that employee serving as your only witness observing the search. Instead, an ideal observer might be the outside counsel’s investigator.
An important part of this response is that you have a pre-established plan that can be taught and disseminated instantaneously. The first rule of any plan is to not make matters worse. In this case that means, “Let’s not have anyone arrested for obstruction.” If the search team has a signed search warrant for your address, they have a lawful right to make entry.
Challenging the search warrant is for another day and both state and federal laws prohibit interfering with the execution of a search warrant. This is the time to politely object to the search and document what is happening. With a copy of the search warrant in hand, outside legal counsel may be able to challenge the scope of the search, but that is not an area where the novice should dabble.
While your specialized team members perform their tasks, the company is generally at a standstill while the search continues. Let your team members work and have the rest of your employees go home. You are shut down for the time being just as you would be any other time your business is closed. You do not want to allow employees to wander the halls and interact with agents. Off-hand comments that make it into a law enforcement report may distort the facts and be difficult to explain later.
Make sure that company employees understand what is happening and what their rights are in this situation. It is important to avoid interfering with the actual lawful execution of a search warrant; it is also unlawful to tell your employees to not speak to the agents. If they know they have a right to meet with a company-retained counsel of their own and have a right to remain silent at this point, it may go a long way in calming nerves.
This is not a difficult matter to explain, but it is critical: if there are documents that are covered by the attorney/client privilege or any other similar privilege, it is critical that you assert that privilege. One reason for the receptionist to be allowed to call company counsel is that there are materials that are covered by the privilege.
It is critical to make privilege claims at this juncture so that the agents are aware of the assertion and that they formally recognize it. This may simply mean that they put those documents in a different box for review by a team subject to judicial review at a time in the near future or it may mean that the team will review the materials for immediate decisions to be made on scene. Whatever procedure the agents have established can be reviewed later, but if you do not assert privilege now, it changes the options available to you as the proceedings go forward
Given the concerns of civil liability, it is not uncommon for agents to make a video recording of their entry and departure from the scene. Their goal is to document any damage that may have been caused by the lawful execution of the warrant. The agents also want to be able to document their professional execution of the warrant in the event that claims are raised at a later point. But that tape is going to stay in their custody and not be available for your team to review as you prepare the defense.
A video record of the search may provide a key piece of support to the defense that could not possibly be understood on the day of the search. However, this process must be handled in a very unassuming manner and with a clear understanding by the agents that you are doing it, and that, in the event there are undercover officers who are masked, that you will make no effort to record them. In some states, recording voice without consent of all parties is a felony, so this is a matter that you must review with outside counsel when you are developing your procedures for search warrant response. Again, you do not want to do anything to make your situation worse.
Just as the agents are trying to learn about your operations, they will be giving you valuable information about their own operations and the focus of their investigation. Your first tasks are to determine who is in charge, document the names of the agents in attendance and note all the agencies involved in the search. This is information that you can gather directly by politely asking for the names of the agents and observing the insignia of the agents’ uniforms or badges around their necks.
The other opportunity available to you in this unique situation is the opportunity to listen to the language the agents use, the apparent hierarchy of the agents, and the small bits of casual conversation that may give you valuable insight into the goals of the search. As the day wears on, the agents will feel more comfortable around your response team and they will talk more freely. This is not to suggest that your team should attempt to interrogate the agents, however, because that will open a two-way dialogue that may lead to statements that are difficult to explain or put in context. The suggestion is simply that you serve as an active listener.
Throughout the day, the agents are going to be forming opinions about your company and your employees. Use this time to make a good impression about your company. A professional, disciplined response in a time of crisis sends a very different message than the one sent by yelling obstructionists. Even though the agents have quite a bit of information about you as their target, it may have all been gathered from third parties. This may be your opportunity to impress them and to help them question the veracity of your accusers. Remember that there will be meetings about your company, your executives and their futures, and the only people in those meetings will be the agents and the prosecutors. You want their memories of this day to weigh in your favor.
Risk Management Magazine and Risk Management Monitor. Copyright 2012 Risk and Insurance Management Society, Inc.
The National Law Review recently published an article by Michael D. DiSanto of Dinsmore & Shohl LLP regarding Inside Bridge rounds and their liability:
Imagine for a moment that you are the CEO of a venture-backed technology or services startup. The company is in the midst of a round of funding, and it is taking longer than anticipated for whatever reason. The cash coffers are unnervingly low, with payroll or other normal monthly expenses right around the corner.
Or maybe the situation is something different. Maybe the company isn’t a technology or services company at all. Maybe it is a manufacturing company and the first big order has just arrived. The company needs to lay out a pile of cash to scale up its team or otherwise secure the necessary raw materials to fulfill the order.
Whatever the case may be, who is the first person the CEO typically calls to alleviate the temporary cash crisis? That is an easy one. The CEO almost always reaches out to the member of the board of directors that represents the private equity fund that typically demonstrates the most support for the company. The conversation typically lasts a few minutes, as the pair hammer out standard (or maybe not so standard) terms for a bridge loan, and the cash coffers are reloaded a few short days later.
Problem solved, right? Not necessarily.
The company’s short-term cash flow problem is solved. Yet, in at least one part of the country, the venture capital funds funding the bridge loans and the director designees approving the transaction could face liability for a breach of the duty of loyalty, if the transaction does not pass the “entire fairness” test.
Did that grab your attention? It certainly grabbed mine.
The Seventh Circuit issued an opinion that, if adopted by California and Delaware, could turn the common practice of inside bridge loans on its head.
The facts of the case probably sound all too familiar to anyone involved with technology startups during the so-called “bubble burst” in 2000 and the global economic crisis that kicked into high gear in late 2008. Cadant was a technology startup incorporated under the laws of Delaware and backed by an investor syndicate lead by two well known venture funds —Venrock and J.P. Morgan. Cadant was facing dire straits in the fall of 2000. Unable to complete a round of preferred stock financing, Cadant sought a bridge loan from an outside investor group, as well as an inside proposal from Venrock and J.P. Morgan.
In late January 2001, the VCs funded an $11 million bridge loan at 10 percent interest and 90-day maturity. Cadant burned through those funds in no time, so the company went back to the deep pockets of its investor syndicate and raised another $9 million bridge from the VCs. This time, however, the bridge included a two-times liquidation preference and the published court opinion makes no mention about seeking a competing proposal.
The Cadant board at the time of both transactions consisted of seven directors. Four were designees of the VCs. The other three were “engineers without financial acumen” who were basically “at the mercy of the financial advice” they received from the four VC designees. The board reportedly relied on Eric Copeland, one of its directors and a Venrock principal, to negotiate the terms of the two bridge loans, despite the fact that Copeland had a clear conflict of interest.
The rest of the story isn’t difficult to predict. Cadant ultimately defaulted on both bridge loans and agreed to sell all of its assets for stock then valued at approximately $55 million. That amount was completely consumed by the liquidation preference of the preferred stockholders and the company’s outstanding debt. The common holders received nothing. Bankruptcy ensued and a liquidating trust brought suit against the VC funds and their director designees.
The Seventh Circuit held that a decision by VC representatives on a board to approve a loan was essentially self-dealing that could not be cured by a vote of majority of the disinterested directors where the interested directors set the terms of the deal. The deal, therefore, had to be evaluated under the entire fairness doctrine, which could raise liability questions when distressed companies do not go out and shop the offer to get a market check as to the fairness of the terms. Note also that the VC funds, while not owing a fiduciary to shareholders directly, faced liability under an aiding and abetting theory.
This opinion seems to be at odds with Delaware law that appears on its face to allow a majority of disinterested directors to approve the deal so long as it was fully and fairly disclosed. Note that the court applied Delaware law due to the internal affairs doctrine, since the company was incorporated in Delaware.
Courts outside of the Seventh Circuit are obviously not bound by this decision. But Judge Posner, the man who authored the opinion, is one of the most well respected and widely cited members of any judiciary. If the Delaware Chancery Court adopts a similar position on the issue, it could result in a dramatically change in the appetite for VCs to fund quick inside bridge rounds for distressed portfolio companies hoping to create some breathing room ahead of an equity round or exit.
Judge Posner’s opinion won’t likely have a chilling effect on inside bridge rounds for Delaware corporations, nor should it. Instead, it should serve as a bit of a wakeup call companies and investors shooting from the hip when it comes to inside bridge rounds.
Two practice points jump off the pages of the opinion. First, directors should think twice before sitting on both sides of the negotiation table when a CEO comes asking for a bridge loan. Had one of the non-VC designees negotiated the terms with the VCs in this case, the case might not have survived a motion to dismiss.
Second, boards should be prepared to defend inside bridges under the “entire fairness” test. Performing some semblance of a market check, if possible, is one way to help avoid liability. You know what they say – the more the merrier when it comes to competing proposals.
It will be interesting to see if Delaware and other jurisdictions ultimately decide to adopt Judge Posner’s approach to dealing with inside bridge rounds.
© 2012 Dinsmore & Shohl LLP.
Featured recently in The National Law Review an article by Christopher J. Caldwell and Laura E. Radle of Varnum LLP regarding LLCs:
Many cottage owners have heard of others who have established a “Cottage LLC”. But what exactly does this mean? What is an LLC? How does an LLC which owns a cottage work and why would someone use an LLC to own his or her cottage?
Simply put, an LLC is a “limited liability company,” which has some features of both partnerships and traditional corporations. It provides greater liability protection than individual ownership and may have perpetual existence. However, an LLC is also somewhat simpler to manage than a traditional corporation.
In an LLC the owners are called members. The LLC can be controlled either by its members or by managers who are selected by the members. In family cottage situations, selecting one or two managers (who may be members) typically works best.
The rules and regulations of an LLC are set forth in the LLC’s operating agreement. The operating agreement can be as basic or as detailed as the members wish. At a minimum, when created for cottage ownership, the operating agreement should discuss the potential sale or transfer of the cottage, management responsibilities, contributions for expenses, potential for renting, scheduling of time, liability of the owners, and an exit strategy if one owner wants to end the relationship. The primary goal of the LLC – as addressed by the operating agreement – is to provide clear rules, rights and obligations for all of the members.
Cottage owners often need to use an entity that will provide a liability shelter (for example, if the cottage is rented to third parties). But the owners also need an entity that does not require a lot of time to maintain. And, most importantly, because cottage owners want to be able to tailor the operating agreement to fit their lifestyles, they need an entity that is flexible. The LLC has all of these attributes, making it a great match for cottage owners. And once an LLC is established, cottage owners will be able to focus on the fun part of their ownership, spending carefree and conflict-free time at the cottage.
© 2012 Varnum LLP
Recently featured in The National Law Review was an article by Rachel Hirsch of Ifrah Law regarding Megaupload Indictments:
In last week’s Megaupload indictment, the U.S. government has raised the debate over copyright infringement on the Web to a whole new level – treating the operators of one of the most popular sites on the Internet as if they were part of organized crime.
On January 19, 2012, a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia charged executives, founders and employees of Megaupload.com, one of the leading file-hosting services on the Web, with copyright infringement, conspiracy to commit racketeering and money laundering. The U.S. Department of Justice is charging that Megaupload.com caused over $500 million in lost revenue from “pirated” content such as music and movies. In addition, the government seized Megaupload’s domain names and shut down all of its sites, contending that Megaupload is an organization dedicated to copyright infringement.
These actions, more suitable to the type of steps that the government takes against an organized-crime enterprise dedicated to murder, theft and racketeering, are astonishing. The government seems to have ignored the fact that other popular content-sharing sites have successfully defended themselves in civil cases by using the safe harbor provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which provide immunity to a site that promptly takes down infringing content.
Among those charged in the indictment were Megaupload founders Kim Dotcom and Mathias Ortmann, chief marketing and sales officer Fin Batato, and lead programmer Bram Van der Kolk. All four were arrested in Auckland, New Zealand. On Monday, the Auckland district court denied bail, making way for extradition proceedings that will likely be contested. In addition to the arrests, approximately 20 search warrants have also been executed within the United States and in eight additional countries. The Eastern District of Virginia has called for the seizure of 18 domain names associated with the site, and about $50 million in assets and targeted sites have been seized thus far.
The indictment is riddled with inconsistencies. On the one hand, the government asserts that Megaupload is not entitled to use the safe harbor provisions. According to the government, everything on the site was doctored to create a veneer of legitimacy, while its employees knew full well that the site’s main use was to distribute infringing content. Yet the government readily admits that it has Megaupload emails talking about using U.S. courts and lawyers to file actions against other “pirate” sites and that the site did take down illegal content and build an abuse tool. To top it all off, many big-name artists support the site, as evidenced by an entirely legal video posted on YouTube, which Megaupload tried to save in U.S. courts from takedown requests.
The 72-page indictment is not some knee-jerk reaction to the ongoing protests of proposed misguided legislation that would strengthen protections against piracy at severe costs to the Internet. This action was clearly in the works for some time. But the filing of a criminal case against one of the most popular sites in the world is remarkable to say the least, given that other popular content-sharing sites have never faced criminal charges for allegedly facilitating piracy. Indeed, when these other sites have been targeted in well-financed civil cases, they have successfully asserted defenses.
When Viacom filed its lawsuit against YouTube in 2007 based on charges that YouTube and its parent, Google were engaging in “massive intentional copyright infringement,” the government did not arrest YouTube or Google executives. In fact, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York held that YouTube was shielded from liability in that case by the safe harbor provisions.
Similarly, when IO Group, Inc. filed a complaint against Veoh Networks for copyright infringement, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California held that Veoh’s video-sharing website was entitled to the protection of the safe harbor provision. In both cases, U.S. courts recognized that simply providing access to content did not equate to engaging in infringing activities.
Megaupload, an online storage and web hosting service site, counts itself in the same category as YouTube and Veoh — merely acting as a hosting company that provides access to content. By invoking the full wrath of U.S. criminal laws, the government is using tools that were never meant for this situation – and is potentially doing incalculable harm to thousands of Internet users and to the integrity of the Web itself.
© 2012 Ifrah PLLC
An article by Sheppard Mullin’s Shanghai Office of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP regarding U.S. Listed Chinese Companies That Want to Go Private was published recently in The National Law Review:
Many U.S. listed Chinese companies have their eye on going private, with a growing number of such transactions having recently closed. This is the combined result of the current weakness of the U.S. capital markets, significant losses in the value of many U.S. listed Chinese companies, and pessimistic market forecasts that have resulted in trading at values below what controlling shareholders, management or private equity firms may think certain companies are worth.
Going private presents companies with challenges as well, including the inability to utilize the public markets to obtain immediate financing, a diminished public profile, and less transparency. Further, the going private process can be arduous and many such transactions are challenged in court.
A going private transaction may take various forms. Factors that influence the choice of structure include the need for outside financing, the composition of shareholders, and the likelihood of a competing bid for the company. Going private transactions are commonly structured as buyouts (either mergers or tender offers), and in some cases as reverse stock splits.
In order to mitigate litigation risks for the breach of fiduciary duties, boards need to ensure the fairness of a transaction to the company’s shareholders, particularly where transactions involve controlling shareholders. As such, it is common for a board to appoint a special committee of independent directors.
Some companies plan subsequent listings in Hong Kong or Mainland China, where they speculate the valuation for their companies may be higher. For companies that were delisted or suspended from U.S. exchanges, the stigma associated with such could pose a challenge with respect to a subsequent listing, as stock exchanges and regulators require issuers to disclose their history.
Some basic questions that the directors and senior management of all U.S. listed Chinese companies should be asking themselves when considering going private, include: what is the most appropriate going private structure? What is a price that is demonstrably fair? Is the special committee of the board sufficiently independent? How should detailed records be maintained of board and special committee meetings, transaction negotiations and other proceedings? How can the risk of litigation be minimized?
Copyright © 2012, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.
