Some thoughts on mimicking a corporate governance structure in Ohio LLCs

By Lev Martyniuk on August 28, 2017

Part One

It is quite common for members of a recently formed LLC accustomed to a corporate governance structure (that is, one having directors, a board of directors and officers versus members and managers) to direct their attorney to draft their operating agreement so that the LLC will have a corporate governance structure too. The intention being to permit the members to continue to use the governance structure with which they are most familiar. (Some clients even enjoy holding board of directors meetings and the formalities of decision making.) Ordinarily, this is accomplished by a provision inserted into the operating agreement that states, more or less, that:

The members agree that the company shall be governed by a board of directors [or managers] (the board) acting collectively; and not by its members. The board shall be comprised of three (3) directors appointed by the members [or by the company’s managers if the company is manager-managed] designated on the attached Exhibit A. The foregoing is an express delegation to the board by the members of their individual right to manage the company including all powers and authority necessary for, ancillary to, or implied by such delegation to direct, manage and control the company’s business and affairs. The board may appoint one or more officers having such titles, rights and duties as are commonly given to them and as prescribed in Chapter 1701 of the Ohio Revised Code. . .

The Ohio Limited Liability Company Act (the Act), Revised Code Chapter 1705, provides in at least one provision that this type of corporate governance structure is implicitly allowed under the Act because it furthers the right of LLC members to govern their internal LLC affairs as they see fit subject however to certain non-waivable provisions of the Act. Specifically: Revised Code Section 1705.081(D), Effect of Operating Agreement, states that “it is the policy of this chapter [1705], subject to the limitations of (B) and (C) of this section, to give maximum effect to the principle of freedom on contract and to the enforceability of operating agreements. . .”

So, given that the LLC’s members have elected and contractually provided for a corporate governance structure are they then bound by implication by the other ancillary duties that fall upon corporate directors and/or officers under Chapter 1701? Continue Reading

Reminder: SEC exhibit hyperlink and format rules become effective Sept. 1, 2017

By Porter Wright on August 23, 2017

Effective for filings on and after Sept. 1, 2017, registrants will be required to include a hyperlink to each exhibit identified in the exhibit index of periodic reports, current reports and registration statements. For registration statements, the rule applies to the initial registration statement, and to each subsequent pre-effective amendment.

The SEC adopted the final rules on March 1, 2017. According to the SEC’s adopting release, the rules are intended to address the inefficient and time-consuming search required to locate exhibits that have been incorporated by reference into reports and registration statements.

These rules apply to the following types of filings:

Form 8-K
Form 10-Q
Form 10-K
Form 10
Form 10-D
Registration statements:
- Forms S-1, S-3, S-4, S-8, S-11, F-1, F-3, F-4, SF-1, SF-3, SF-3, F-10 and 20-F

The impact of efforts clauses in transactional documents

By Mark Koogler on August 21, 2017

Most transactional documents include effort clauses as covenants to require a party to perform a certain act or acts to achieve a stated goal. These terms generally include the following:

Best efforts
Reasonable efforts
Commercially reasonable efforts

There are no universally accepted definitions or standards for interpreting these terms. As a result, their use can create ambiguity and uncertainty when a dispute arises, making it difficult to predict an outcome.

When a court evaluates whether a party has exerted the necessary effort standard, the court generally first examines the business contract for a definition of the efforts term. If the business contract contains such a definition, the court will apply that standard. If the business contract is silent, the court has discretion to interpret an efforts clause or term by considering the business contract’s facts and circumstances.

In the absence of a definition, a court will impose standards of:

Good faith, which requires honesty and fairness from the acting party
Reasonableness, which requires diligence from the acting party and is often a more demanding standard than good faith

Retaining key employees in an acquisition

By Kyle Schrodi and Porter Wright on August 8, 2017

Imagine identifying an acquisition target that looks great on paper: strong earnings, efficient operations and good workplace environment. But after acquiring the target, a key employee leaves, taking with him or her key customers and suppliers. From day one, the newly acquired business is treading water due to the lack of business continuity after the acquisition.

Even though an acquisition might look good in theory, the reality of its execution poses multiple threats that could disrupt the business after the transaction, including employees who view the change in ownership as a threat or a risk, customers who feel the change in ownership might be a good time to shop around and suppliers wanting to perhaps renegotiate contracts. In order to alleviate some of these risks, potential buyers need to address these considerations head-on during the due diligence and negotiation process.

Learning from Yahoo!’s missteps: Meeting SEC disclosure obligations after a cyber-attack

By Jack Gravelle and Porter Wright on August 4, 2017

In July 2016, Verizon announced it would buy Yahoo! for an unprecedented $4.83 billion. Several months later, Yahoo! disclosed two massive data breaches that affected 1.5 billion people, threatening to scuttle the agreement. Although Verizon recently finalized the acquisition, the hack forced Yahoo! to accept a $350 million reduction in purchase price.

Within the last few years, publically held companies—including Sony, Target, and most recently, Chipotle Mexican Grill—have been infiltrated by hackers bent on stealing trade secrets and personal information. The efficacy of cloud computing has spawned a digital arms race between companies who attempt to safeguard customer information and private and state actors, who wish to obtain it. Given that large-scale data breaches are becoming the norm, companies need to be aware of reporting and disclosure obligations they may face in the event of a breach. While most companies recognize their obligations under state data breach laws and HIPAA, few publically traded companies consider what, if anything, they should disclose to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in the event of a breach. In failing to do so, they risk SEC sanctions and potential liability from class action lawsuits, either of which could result in significant losses.

Non-competition agreements: Ensuring enforceability

By Mark Koogler on July 21, 2017

A non-competition agreement raises state-law public policy concerns. As a result, states often restrict the scope of non-competition agreements before they will enforce them. The protectable interests that states will recognize, the rules of construction that states will apply and the required elements of a non-competition agreement will vary from state to state. You may adhere to general guidelines in drafting non-competition agreements, but you should always consult local law.

Most jurisdictions disfavor non-competition agreements as a matter of public policy because they view such agreements as a restraint of trade. Broader language places a heavier burden on the employer to justify the restrictions whereas narrowly tailoring the language of a non-competition agreement reduces the risk that a court will construe the agreement to unnecessarily restrain trade.

The importance of reading the documents

By Lev Martyniuk on July 7, 2017

One of the most important things lawyers and clients should do in every merger & acquisition transaction is to read the documents, and be clear on the central facts of their transaction. This seems so profoundly simple and obvious that it seems that it would not need to be repeated. But a recent U.S. Tax Court case highlights the implications of not doing so.

In Makric Enterprises, Inc. v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2016-44 (Dkt. No. 1017-13, issued 03/9/2016), the taxpayers of Makric Enterprises, Inc. (Makric) sued the IRS to set aside a determination that the they collectively owed the IRS $2,839,780 and an accuracy-related penalty of $567,956 stemming from a relatively simple sale of the common stock of a parent company of its wholly owned subsidiary to a third-party purchaser.

Makric was the parent company, its subsidiary entity was Alpha Circuits, Inc. (Alpha), and the third party purchaser was TS3 Technology, Inc. (TS3).

Data breaches and due diligence

By Porter Wright on July 5, 2017

Chances are that you or someone you know has been the victim of a data breach. The high number of cyberattacks and data breaches, now reported almost daily, calls attention to the importance of addressing these areas in the due diligence process in M&A deals.

Whether a target company has had issues with cybersecurity breaches in the past is a question that should be on the top of all acquirer’s minds, especially if that target has an online presence. If the target is a consumer facing business who regularly collects personal information, acquirers should focus its due diligence requests on the security practices of the target. Has the target implemented credit card tokenization? Have they updated their point-of-sale systems? How long do they retain customer information? If a target does not have a consumer base, the due diligence may instead focus on other areas, including how the target protects its trade secrets or confidential information. Continue Reading

Why indemnification clauses need to be scrutinized in purchase and sale agreements

By Mark Koogler on June 5, 2017

Indemnification clauses in purchase and sale agreements are intended to address the obligation of one party to indemnify and hold the other party harmless from direct and third party claims. However, indemnification clauses also allocate the risk of losses between the parties.

An indemnification clause should specify the rights of the parties following a breach of representations, warranties, covenants or the occurrence of a specific liability. On one hand, a buyer will negotiate an indemnification clause to expand the scope or availabilities of other remedies, at law or equity, including adding other persons whom the buyer may otherwise have difficulty recovering from and expanding the types of recoverable losses. On the other hand, a seller will negotiate an indemnification clause to limit indemnification as the exclusive remedy to permit more predictable outcomes and mitigate potential liability.

Will the DOL continue to make ESOPs a compliance priority?

By Bob Tannous on May 15, 2017

Greg Daugherty, our colleague at Employee Benefits Law Report shared a post exploring whether or not the Department of Labor (DOL) under President Trump will continue to make employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs) a compliance priority.

A recently filed case suggests that the DOL may continue to make a priority out of investigating potential abuses in ESOP transactions. As such, employers who are considering the adoption of the ESOP should be mindful of putting together an experienced team to guide them through the fiduciary issues. In particular, it is critical for the trustee of an ESOP to hire an independent appraiser that has not performed a preliminary ESOP feasibility study for the company, and the trustee and other fiduciaries of the ESOP should be engaged with the due diligence process.

Read the full post here.