Even in the Charlotte Metro area, which has tended in the last decade to better weather tough economic times than most parts of the country, we're filling the pinch of the current economic downturn.
Many of my clients have told me that their business is down: fewer homes are being buit, materials purchased, real estate sold, and so on. This, of course, is no surprise, and many of my clients are currently retooling their business to help bring in additional income during these times.
But staying profitable isn't just about earning money off of new business; it also means that you need to get paid for the business you have already performed. It's easier to lose one job (and the potential income) than it is to perform the job, expend the effort, labor and materials, then not get paid. For many of my clients, it may take two or three paying jobs to cover the cost of one job for which they didn't get paid.
How, then, can you protect yourself so that you get paid for the work you do, so that you get paid?
1. Written contract. Many of my clients are subcontractors (brickmasons, graders, plumbers, etc.), who work on houses, and they rarely get a written contract with the person or company who hired them. However, this is very important. Obviously, a written contract will show proof there's an agreement, but that's the least important factor (after all, if you've done the work, that's proof as well). No, a contract is more important because it will outline the terms of what you are supposed to do, and when you can collect your money, so that your client can't hold you at bay (e.g., saying, "I'm not paying you until the house is finished by everyone"). Also, in North Carolina, you typically can't collect attorney's fees unless you have a contract providing for it, nor can you collect interest on late payments without an applicable provision in your contract. Sure, if you hire an attorney who successfully collects your fee, you're somewhat relieved; but you'll also be disappointed once you subtract his fee, and realize that your money could've been earning interest over the six months it took to collect. By contrast, a well-written contract could provide that the debtor has to pay you 15 percent attorney's fees and legal costs if you have to sue, and can provide for 18 percent annual interest on bills more than 30 days due.
2. Personal guaranty. Many clients simply do business with the "company," even if the company is a one-man operation. If you're doing business, attempt to wrangle a personal guaranty, in writing, from clients. In other words, if you don't get paid, the person with whom you're dealing should personally guarantee payment of the debt. If you're performing contract work for, e.g., Wachovia Bank, this may not be possible. But I suspect most of your clients are small businesses. These businesses' owners have to guarantee their bank loans; make them guarantee payment for your work. If a business owes two bills, and one of them is personally guaranteed, the bill personally guaranteed will be paid first--simply because that bill shall cause the owner personal liability and therefore is more urgent!
3. Cutting off work early. Nobody wants to quit a job or stop supplying a customer, but as a small business owner, you need to be careful not to extend credit for too much work/supplies, nor should you let the unpaid bills linger. Often, a customer may get further in debt trouble the longer your bill lingers. If you haven't been paid in 30 days, do not continue to supply services, material or labor, or you can be getting YOURSELF further indebted to your customers. Some of my clients used to take a "double down" gambling approach: they know they shouldn't keep supplying goods or services, but don't want to make their customer mad and have them walk away. The problem with this approach is that the more the customer owes you, the more desperate YOUR become, and the harder the debt becomes to pay. Get out early, and collect your debt--by lawsuit if necessary. My clients, under my advice, now cut off credit after 30 days and send accounts to me shortly thereafter. Some of their customers get upset, but in the past two years, many of their customers became insolvent--but we got paid because we called our accounts due while there was still money for us to be paid.
If you have questions about account collections or creditors' rights, please contact me for an appointment at 704-735-0483.
Sabtu, 27 September 2008
Minggu, 14 September 2008
The Art of Killing the Deal
I've had the privilege, in my business law practice, to work on transactions and cases with good lawyers not only in my own state, but in other states as well. Each state (and state's lawyers) brings with it its own subculture and quirks. However, I've never, until a recent transaction, worked with attorneys who seemed hell-bent on picking a deal apart until it died a painful death.
I'll caveat what I write next with the possibility that perhaps I and/or my client were played, and (for whatever reasons) were manipulated for reasons we don't understand. But assuming not, I'll try to provide a few non-identifying details. My client, a commercial contractor, has certain niche construction that it has perfected and gained a reputation for in that niche. So much so, in fact, that it has expanded its operations in numerous states all over the U.S.
My client is run by its astute owner, who understands his own risk tolerance. Therefore, in negotiations, once he's received my advice, he accepts some, and rejects other, and we tend to quickly come to agreements with the other party. We negotiate hard, but we're flexible--and my client has become very successful with this.
But this time things simply have not worked out, and they may now crash and burn. We sent the other party a standard document, and what usually would be a process of a couple of negotiating back-and-forths has turned, instead, into months of excrutiating negotiation from the attorneys, nitpicking over minutae, creating far-fetched scenarios to justify their extreme positions. The result of this is that my client may simply be unable to do a deal with this client, and because of the length of time in these ridiculous negotations may no longer be able to enter into this contract anymore. Here then, are my own thoughts about the role of an attorney in negotiating a business transaction.
1. The attorney's role is to inform and protect. Notice that I didn't say just to protect. Of course, an attorney is supposed to protect his client, but in a business transaction, the client needs to understand what is contained in the contract or transaction. I always tell a new business client something like this: "I can protect you in a contract so that you're as protected as you'd ever want to be--but nobody would probably ever sign it." The point is, a contract that is too one-sided in favor of my client would not be commercially reasonable. Therefore, I try to protect my client as much as I can, but there will be issues on which the other party will not budge (perhaps, for example, the seller of a business will only allow my client 30 days due diligence). My job then is to let my client know the tough spots, let him know the risks, and fully inform my client so that he can make an informed risk decision about what he should do.
2. The attorney's role is not to be a roadblock in the way of the client's goals. Business clients, espcially experienced ones, are not children. Your job as an attorney is not to protect a client from himself, and shouldn't argue and negotiate ad infinitim. Some attorneys seem to get some pleasure in negotiating, haggling, and fighting for even the most minute and unimportant provisions in the contract, mentally chalking up points for every single concession they've obtained. I don't know what the "opposing counsel" feels like the score is in the contract I've been working on, but to me, we both score a big fat zero when a perfectly good deal dies as a result of the lawyers. If you want to fight and beat up your opponent, be a litigator! Transactional attorneys are supposed to HELP their clients accomplish goals.
3. The role of a business attorney is to help a client achieve goals, not to thwart them. This particular client has big goals (as do many of my clients). My job is to help these clients meet their goals: by making sure they comply with applicable laws, by drafting contracts that protect them and by helping them perform careful analysis so their dreams do not turn into nightmares. Yes, there are times when it is my job to tell a client, as I did a week ago, that a particular deal SHOULD NOT be done. But with most deals and most clients, it is a balancing act whereby I try to help my client reach what is a workable goal on a workable deal, while protecting the client.
Does this mean that I'm a "yes man" for my clients? Absolutely not. I often have to tell clients that the way they want to do something will, e.g., violate a contract or will not comply with the law. But for a good business attorney, the work doesn't stop there. My job then becomes how to help my client still reach that goal WITHIN the constrictions of law, contract and all practical considerations.
I look back at my clients, and what they have accomplished, and I am proud that I can say I have had a role (however small) in these accomplishments. Do these lawyers to which I refer take pride in how many deals they've killed?
I'll caveat what I write next with the possibility that perhaps I and/or my client were played, and (for whatever reasons) were manipulated for reasons we don't understand. But assuming not, I'll try to provide a few non-identifying details. My client, a commercial contractor, has certain niche construction that it has perfected and gained a reputation for in that niche. So much so, in fact, that it has expanded its operations in numerous states all over the U.S.
My client is run by its astute owner, who understands his own risk tolerance. Therefore, in negotiations, once he's received my advice, he accepts some, and rejects other, and we tend to quickly come to agreements with the other party. We negotiate hard, but we're flexible--and my client has become very successful with this.
But this time things simply have not worked out, and they may now crash and burn. We sent the other party a standard document, and what usually would be a process of a couple of negotiating back-and-forths has turned, instead, into months of excrutiating negotiation from the attorneys, nitpicking over minutae, creating far-fetched scenarios to justify their extreme positions. The result of this is that my client may simply be unable to do a deal with this client, and because of the length of time in these ridiculous negotations may no longer be able to enter into this contract anymore. Here then, are my own thoughts about the role of an attorney in negotiating a business transaction.
1. The attorney's role is to inform and protect. Notice that I didn't say just to protect. Of course, an attorney is supposed to protect his client, but in a business transaction, the client needs to understand what is contained in the contract or transaction. I always tell a new business client something like this: "I can protect you in a contract so that you're as protected as you'd ever want to be--but nobody would probably ever sign it." The point is, a contract that is too one-sided in favor of my client would not be commercially reasonable. Therefore, I try to protect my client as much as I can, but there will be issues on which the other party will not budge (perhaps, for example, the seller of a business will only allow my client 30 days due diligence). My job then is to let my client know the tough spots, let him know the risks, and fully inform my client so that he can make an informed risk decision about what he should do.
2. The attorney's role is not to be a roadblock in the way of the client's goals. Business clients, espcially experienced ones, are not children. Your job as an attorney is not to protect a client from himself, and shouldn't argue and negotiate ad infinitim. Some attorneys seem to get some pleasure in negotiating, haggling, and fighting for even the most minute and unimportant provisions in the contract, mentally chalking up points for every single concession they've obtained. I don't know what the "opposing counsel" feels like the score is in the contract I've been working on, but to me, we both score a big fat zero when a perfectly good deal dies as a result of the lawyers. If you want to fight and beat up your opponent, be a litigator! Transactional attorneys are supposed to HELP their clients accomplish goals.
3. The role of a business attorney is to help a client achieve goals, not to thwart them. This particular client has big goals (as do many of my clients). My job is to help these clients meet their goals: by making sure they comply with applicable laws, by drafting contracts that protect them and by helping them perform careful analysis so their dreams do not turn into nightmares. Yes, there are times when it is my job to tell a client, as I did a week ago, that a particular deal SHOULD NOT be done. But with most deals and most clients, it is a balancing act whereby I try to help my client reach what is a workable goal on a workable deal, while protecting the client.
Does this mean that I'm a "yes man" for my clients? Absolutely not. I often have to tell clients that the way they want to do something will, e.g., violate a contract or will not comply with the law. But for a good business attorney, the work doesn't stop there. My job then becomes how to help my client still reach that goal WITHIN the constrictions of law, contract and all practical considerations.
I look back at my clients, and what they have accomplished, and I am proud that I can say I have had a role (however small) in these accomplishments. Do these lawyers to which I refer take pride in how many deals they've killed?
Sabtu, 06 September 2008
Venture Capital, Part Two
One of the biggest things to consider when entering into (either side of) a venture capital agreement is to determine whether the capital infusion will be treated as debt, as equity, or a mixture of both. I will write this article from the standpoint of the venture capitalist, although you, the reader, will quickly comprehend the different advantages and disadvantages for the recipient of the capital as well.
When providing venture capital for a startup, should you structure your capital as a loan to the company, as partial ownership in the company, or as some combination of both?
First, consider the advantages and disadvantages to treating the capital infusion as a loan.
Advantage One: Security. Venture capitalism is a speculative matter. That is, you, the capitalist, are putting money into a venture that may or may not succeed. If the business fails, will you get all, some or none of your money back? Part of that may depend on whether, if the business goes bust, you are treated as a creditor or as an owner. When a business becomes financially insolvent, any remaining assets or monies are typically paid out according to certain priorities. There are many nuances, but put simply, creditors will be paid before the owners. Therefore, if the business fails, you have a BETTER chance of getting paid if you have structured yourself as a creditor than if you have structured yourself as an owner.
Advantage Two: Protection. Similar to the first advantage described, structuring the transaction as a loan will give the venture capitalist more protection than as an equity owner. Often, the venture capitalist will not be involved with the day-to-day operation of the company. I have seen numerous instances in which the business operators mismanaged the funds of the "money partner," spending in a deficit until nothing was left. By structuring the capital as a loan--and more importantly, as a loan secured by collateral of the company--the venture capitalist can better protect against the squandering or liquidation of the assets. Using an example, say the operation is run by the two majority shareholders, and you, the venture capitalist, provided $250,000 for a 33 percent stake. If the majority shareholders, who saw the business was floundering, decided to start selling off the company property to keep funds coming (and to pay their salaries), they could do it. And if they did it quickly enough, you would not know about it soon enough to stop it. By the time the company went bust, there would be nothing left to divide. On the other hand, if you were a secured creditor, the shareholder/operators would be unable to sell off the company property without paying you off first (or at least, getting your permission to sell).
Advantage Three: Control. Believe it or not, being a creditor of the company may give you more control than being an equity holder. As a simple shareholder, you can be outvoted on many of the corporate decisions unless you are given a majority of the stock (which is unlikely). As a creditor, however, you can place certain restrictions within the initial loan agreement, such as:
1. Prohibitions against selling off the assets;
2. Prohibitions against the company owners taking excessive salaries or dividends;
3. Prohibitions against taking major company actions without the approval of the creditor.
Of course, there are disadvantages to treating the venture capital infusion as a purely loan transaction. The biggest, and most important, is that a loan limits the amount of profit that can be realized. A loan will contain interest, and some sort of repayment plan. At the end of the day, there is ceiling to what profit the creditor can realize. For example, if the venture capitalist provides a $100,000 loan for five years at eight percent interest,then the capitalist would know that, at best, he would realize a total profit of $21658.36--and that's if the loan is not paid off early! Remember too, that venture capital involves, quite often, higher than average risk, for which a venture capital should expect (if successful), a higher than average reward. There are easier ways to earn eight percent returns than by investing in risky ventures that may completely fail.
Owning equity in the company, of course, allows the venture capitalist a chance to share in both the risks and rewards of the start-up company. In theory, as an equity holder, the capitalist risks losing his investment if the company busts, but shares the potential reward with all other shareholders if the company succeeds.
The disadvantages to being an equity holder are, as you may guess, the converse to the advantages of lending shown above.
1. Security. If the company goes bust, an equity holder is the last in line to get paid from the remaining company assets (and usually, there are none by that time).
2. Protection and Control. As a pure equity holder, the capitalist will have less chance to exert control over the company, and stands a higher chance of being susceptible to abuse by the majority shareholders.
What then is the best approach? There is no solution that fits all, but a typical venture capital deal will try to combine the two approaches: that is, the venture capitalist's money is treated in part, like a loan, but also provides the capitalist an ownership interest in the company. The following are some of the provisions that may be found in this approach:
1. Typical loan provisions, that provide a promise to repay (a promissory note), as well as some sort of security (for example, a lien on company assets).
2. Restrictions that the company cannot take certain actions (selling all of its equipment, for example) while the loan is still outstanding.
3. Sometimes, a provision that, at a given time, part or all of the loan is converted into stock.
4. A certain amount of stock ownership.
5. A guaranteed director or number of directors on the company's board.
6. A shareholder agreement that the company may not issue additional stock without the venture capitalist's approval.
7. A provision that provides the start-up owners the right to buy out the venture capitalist or, conversely, a provision giving the venture capitalist the right to force his stock to be bought.
If you have questions about engaging in a venture capital agreement in North Carolina, please contact me for an appointment at wldeaton@ppd-law.com
When providing venture capital for a startup, should you structure your capital as a loan to the company, as partial ownership in the company, or as some combination of both?
First, consider the advantages and disadvantages to treating the capital infusion as a loan.
Advantage One: Security. Venture capitalism is a speculative matter. That is, you, the capitalist, are putting money into a venture that may or may not succeed. If the business fails, will you get all, some or none of your money back? Part of that may depend on whether, if the business goes bust, you are treated as a creditor or as an owner. When a business becomes financially insolvent, any remaining assets or monies are typically paid out according to certain priorities. There are many nuances, but put simply, creditors will be paid before the owners. Therefore, if the business fails, you have a BETTER chance of getting paid if you have structured yourself as a creditor than if you have structured yourself as an owner.
Advantage Two: Protection. Similar to the first advantage described, structuring the transaction as a loan will give the venture capitalist more protection than as an equity owner. Often, the venture capitalist will not be involved with the day-to-day operation of the company. I have seen numerous instances in which the business operators mismanaged the funds of the "money partner," spending in a deficit until nothing was left. By structuring the capital as a loan--and more importantly, as a loan secured by collateral of the company--the venture capitalist can better protect against the squandering or liquidation of the assets. Using an example, say the operation is run by the two majority shareholders, and you, the venture capitalist, provided $250,000 for a 33 percent stake. If the majority shareholders, who saw the business was floundering, decided to start selling off the company property to keep funds coming (and to pay their salaries), they could do it. And if they did it quickly enough, you would not know about it soon enough to stop it. By the time the company went bust, there would be nothing left to divide. On the other hand, if you were a secured creditor, the shareholder/operators would be unable to sell off the company property without paying you off first (or at least, getting your permission to sell).
Advantage Three: Control. Believe it or not, being a creditor of the company may give you more control than being an equity holder. As a simple shareholder, you can be outvoted on many of the corporate decisions unless you are given a majority of the stock (which is unlikely). As a creditor, however, you can place certain restrictions within the initial loan agreement, such as:
1. Prohibitions against selling off the assets;
2. Prohibitions against the company owners taking excessive salaries or dividends;
3. Prohibitions against taking major company actions without the approval of the creditor.
Of course, there are disadvantages to treating the venture capital infusion as a purely loan transaction. The biggest, and most important, is that a loan limits the amount of profit that can be realized. A loan will contain interest, and some sort of repayment plan. At the end of the day, there is ceiling to what profit the creditor can realize. For example, if the venture capitalist provides a $100,000 loan for five years at eight percent interest,then the capitalist would know that, at best, he would realize a total profit of $21658.36--and that's if the loan is not paid off early! Remember too, that venture capital involves, quite often, higher than average risk, for which a venture capital should expect (if successful), a higher than average reward. There are easier ways to earn eight percent returns than by investing in risky ventures that may completely fail.
Owning equity in the company, of course, allows the venture capitalist a chance to share in both the risks and rewards of the start-up company. In theory, as an equity holder, the capitalist risks losing his investment if the company busts, but shares the potential reward with all other shareholders if the company succeeds.
The disadvantages to being an equity holder are, as you may guess, the converse to the advantages of lending shown above.
1. Security. If the company goes bust, an equity holder is the last in line to get paid from the remaining company assets (and usually, there are none by that time).
2. Protection and Control. As a pure equity holder, the capitalist will have less chance to exert control over the company, and stands a higher chance of being susceptible to abuse by the majority shareholders.
What then is the best approach? There is no solution that fits all, but a typical venture capital deal will try to combine the two approaches: that is, the venture capitalist's money is treated in part, like a loan, but also provides the capitalist an ownership interest in the company. The following are some of the provisions that may be found in this approach:
1. Typical loan provisions, that provide a promise to repay (a promissory note), as well as some sort of security (for example, a lien on company assets).
2. Restrictions that the company cannot take certain actions (selling all of its equipment, for example) while the loan is still outstanding.
3. Sometimes, a provision that, at a given time, part or all of the loan is converted into stock.
4. A certain amount of stock ownership.
5. A guaranteed director or number of directors on the company's board.
6. A shareholder agreement that the company may not issue additional stock without the venture capitalist's approval.
7. A provision that provides the start-up owners the right to buy out the venture capitalist or, conversely, a provision giving the venture capitalist the right to force his stock to be bought.
If you have questions about engaging in a venture capital agreement in North Carolina, please contact me for an appointment at wldeaton@ppd-law.com
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)