Tag: confidentiality

Keeping Eyes Wide Open When New Members Join the Pack: A Cautious Approach to the Addition of New Business Partners

There are many reasons for business owners to consider adding new partners, including to secure additional capital, to add needed expertise to help grow the company, to bring family members or close friends to join in building the business and to put a succession plan in place. Adding new partners can, therefore, provide a boost to the company’s revenues, lighten the load carried by the founder, and put the business on course for long-term success.  But this decision is not without risk because the new business partners may create conflicts, disrupt the business and insist on making changes that put the company’s existence in peril.

If after carefully weighing the pros and cons, business owners decide to move forward in adding new partners, this post reviews important steps they can take to protect themselves and the business from the decisions and actions of these new stakeholders in the company.

Equity Ownership Can Be Conditional or Subject to Cancellation

One protective step business owners can take when adding a new partner is to make the addition of a new partner’s conditional or subject to cancellation. This approach permits the owner to wait to grant the ownership interest in the company to the new partner until he or she has met specified business goals by a certain date or to cancel the grant of equity to the new partner if the specific goals have not been achieved by the agreed date.

The addition of a new business partner is conditional when the partner does not receive equity in the business until the prescribed business goals are met. For example, if a new partner is tasked with generating new investments or growing sales for the business, the partner will not receive any equity in the company unless these business targets are met by the stated date. This conditional arrangement prevents a potential new partner from becoming an owner if he or she has failed to deliver on important goals right from the outset.

Under a cancellation arrangement, the new partner may receive equity in the company initially, but the grant of this ownership stake is subject to being cancelled if the set goals are not met. Using the example above, if the new business partner is tasked with raising funds or with increasing sales for the company and cannot meet these goals by a specific date, the equity grant will be cancelled automatically or it can be made subject to cancellation. In the latter case, the business owner has discretion to extend the time for the new partner to meet the specified goals.

The use of a conditional or “cancelable” approach to adding a new business partner gives the business owner an “out clause.” These are contract rights that authorize the business owner to avoid adding a new partner who has failed to meet clear and defined expectations.

Securing a Buy-Sell Agreement Is Essential

We have written frequently about the importance of a Buy-Sell Agreement, which gives the business owner the right to redeem the ownership interest of a new partner.  This is a key provision to permit the majority owner to exercise rights to remove an investor as an owner of the business who has become disruptive or even adversarial.  Absent a Buy-Sell Agreement, a business owner may be “stuck” with a minority investor who cannot be removed, and who is demanding access to financial records and who may also assert claims against the owner for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.

To avoid this situation, business owners should secure a Buy-Sell Agreement with all of their new partners at the time they become owners in the company.  The specific terms and the issues associated with Buy-Sell Agreements have been discussed in previous posts [here] and [here].

Consider Confidentiality Provisions and Restrictive Covenants

New business partners may not be employed by the company, but they will likely receive access to the company’s trade secrets and other business sensitive information. For this reason, all new business partners should be requested to sign confidentiality agreements to protect all of the company’s confidential information. This confidentiality agreement should be in force, of course, while partners have an ownership stake, as well as for at least some period of time after they no longer hold any interest in the business.  A majority owner will not want to be forced to compete with former business partners who are using the company’s confidential information immediately after they sever ties with the company.

For this reason—avoiding competition with former business partners—majority owners may want to require their new business partners to also agree to non-competition and non-solicitation agreements as a condition of becoming new owners of the company. These may not be multi-year agreements, but it is not unreasonable for a majority owner to require former partners not to engage in competition for a period of 12-18 months after departing as owners of the company. A non-compete agreement may not be warranted if the new partner will be holding only a small stake of less than 10% of the company. But for partners who receive a substantial ownership stake in the business, the majority owner will want to consider requesting some type of non-compete and non-solicitation agreement with these partners.

Allow Competition by Owners

As a final note, Texas law permits the duty of care to be eliminated as fiduciary duty by officers, directors and managers and that duty should therefore be removed from the company’s governance documents.  Texas law does not permit company owners, however, to eliminate the fiduciary duty of loyalty owed by governing persons, but the owners can agree that each of them are permitted to engage in competition with the business and they can agree that certain officers or managers are not required to devote full-time efforts to the business. Therefore, if a business owner wants the freedom not to work full-time for the company and/or the owner is engaging in activities that may be seen as competitive by other company owners, the company’s governance documents should expressly provide for the majority owner to have this type of flexibility.

Conclusion

A majority owner’s decision to add new business partners to the company can rejuvenate the business by providing financial capital, critical new vision, and helpful support. But these new business partners may also challenge the owner and create disruptive conflicts that harm the company and its prospects.  Business owners should therefore be cautious when they decide to add new partners, and the addition of these new owners should be structured in ways that will ensure that the business remains successful.  If things do not work out, as a last resort, the Buy-Sell Agreement that the majority owner should obtain from all new partners will enable the owner to exercise redemption rights to remove these new partners from the business when their presence threatens the company’s continued existence.

© 2020 Winstead PC.

For more on business partner considerations, see the National Law Review Corporate and Business Organizations law section.

Ex Parte Communications between Treating Physician and Attorneys in Tennessee

Dickinson Wright Logo

Under HIPAA, physicians are permitted to disclose “protected health information” to their attorneys for purposes of their own healthcare operations. This allows physicians sued by patients for malpractice to provide their attorneys with the information needed to prepare and present a defense. Ordinarily, subpoenas or orders are a part of a court ordered deposition or trial at which the patients or their attorneys are present, so the need to protect health information is lessened.

HIPAA does not allow treating physicians in one practice to disclose “protected health information” to attorneys for a treating physician in another practice unless a subpoena or an order of a court permits that disclosure. Instead, HIPAA allows members of a group practice to transmit protected health information concerning a patient to business associates of that practice. This means that attorneys representing the other physicians in the group practice can receive information related to the practice’s healthcare operations, including information relating to representing the practice in malpractice lawsuits. A subpoena or court order is not required for this disclosure. Thus, when a physician is being sued for malpractice, HIPAA permits the practice’s attorney to meet with other physicians in that same practice and obtain protected health information related to the plaintiff.

While HIPAA may permit the disclosure of protected health information in this circumstance, state law is another matter altogether. For example, the Tennessee Supreme Court found that an implied covenant of confidentiality exists between the treating physician and his or her patient. Like HIPAA, this implied covenant of confidentiality absolutely prohibits an attorney for a treating physician from meeting with another treating physician unless the patient or the patient’s attorney is present. Like HIPAA, the court assumes that the patient’s interests are protected when the patient is present.

This in turn begs the question – does the implied covenant of confidentiality prohibit a physician employed in a group practice from meeting with the attorneys representing another employee of the practice who has been sued for malpractice without the patient being present? In Tennessee, this issue was recently addressed in Hall v. Crenshaw, W2013-00662-COA-R9-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. July 18, 2014). The court of appeals in Hall held that the implied covenant of confidentiality does not prohibit a physician in a group practice from meeting with attorneys representing another employee physician of the practice. The court of appeals reasoned that a corporation can only function through its agents and employees. Under state law, all knowledge of the corporation’s employees is imputed to the corporation. As a result, the court held that the corporation already possessed this information, meaning the corporation, through its employees, is able to discuss a patient’s medical record and history with the attorneys representing the corporation and its employees.

© Copyright 2014 Dickinson Wright PLLC
ARTICLE BY

Keith C. Dennen
OF
Dickinson Wright PLLC

United Kingdom: A Reminder About Careful Drafting of Confidentiality Clauses for Shareholders

Katten Muchin Law Firm

The recent decision by the High Court of England and Wales (Chancery Division) in Richmond Pharmacology Limited (Company) v. Chester Overseas Limited, et al. underscores the need to carefully draft confidentiality clauses and to incorporate specific exceptions where these exceptions are reasonably foreseeable in the future. The case involved a shareholders agreement which contained a standard confidentiality clause requiring the parties to treat as strictly confidential all commercially sensitive information concerning the company subject to certain prescribed exceptions. One of the exceptions allowed disclosure to a professional advisor provided that the advisor agrees to be bound by a similar confidentiality obligation. Unsurprisingly, however, there was no specific exception allowing disclosures to a potential third-party buyer. Under the terms of the clause as drafted, the shareholder was required to obtain consent to make the disclosures. 

Over time Chester Overseas Limited decided to sell its shares and engaged a corporate finance advisor (Advisor) to assist in facilitating the sale. After the initial discussions regarding a management buy-out fell through, the Advisor sought to generate interest from third parties. In doing so, the Advisor took care to obtain nondisclosure agreements from certain of these potential buyers prior to disclosing the sensitive information. 

In its decision, the High Court stated that while the shareholder was entitled to disclose the information to its Advisor pursuant to the professional advisor exception, it was not authorized to disclose the confidential information to third parties.   

While the High Court’s decision regarding the confidentiality clause may not come as a surprise, it does reinforce the need to carefully consider a client’s position in future transactions governed under English law.   

The High Court’s decision is available here.

ARTICLE BY

Neil Robson
 
OF 
Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP

HTTPS – Should I Implement It on My Site?

Consultsweb Logo

Google announced last Wednesday, August 6, that the search engine will use https as a ranking signal. HTTPS stands forHypertext Transport Protocol Secure, which protects the data integrity and confidentiality of users visiting a site. For example, when a user enters data into a form on a site in order to subscribe to updates or purchase a product, a secure site protects that user’s personal information and ensures that the user communicates with the authorized owner of the site. For the HTTPS connection to work properly, websites require an SSL certificate, which is what enables the site to make a secure connection.

HTTPS Hypertext Transport Protocol Secure

Even though Google is making this change, it is not something that webmasters should jump into lightly. Webmasters should implement https only when they really need it and have sections in their site where they need to protect their visitors’ information.

Before making any drastic changes to the site, it is important to take into consideration that Google stated that this change will affect less than one percent of queries, carrying less weight than other signals such as high-quality content.

Cons of using https

  • Up until this recent announcement, it was recommended only using https on the sections of the site that needed to protect the confidentiality of user data, such as payment forms that collected credit card information, the site’s login section or any page that would sends/receive other private information (such as street address, phone number or health records), because using https in the whole site can overload webservers and make sites slower, which affects negatively on a site’s ranking.
  • Changing to https also means that all of the URLs in your site will change and it will be necessary to redirect all of the URLs on the site, so that they can be indexed by Google and avoid having duplicate content between https and http URLs. Redirects usually increase the load time of the site, which can be negative ranking factor and reduce the link juice coming from external sites pointing to http URLs.
  • SSL certificates cost money, and certificates signed by well-known authorities can be expensive.

I advise against making an immediate decision to change to https because it is a recent change and apparently the effort to switch exceeds the benefit obtained in rankings. Right now it is better to stand back and observe how the change affects those sites that alter their URLs to https.

 

ARTICLE BY

Robert Padgett
OF
Consultwebs.com, Inc.