Small business break ups

Based on the comments I get from readers, one of the hottest topics on my blog are posts dealing with small business break-ups--be they partnerships, corporations or LLCs. As I've written before, within those disputes, one of the biggest struggles involves the inequality among partners or business co-owners, i.e., what happens when there are equal owners making unequal contributions.

What often happens in such cases is that the business breaks up. In worse cases, the disputes end in massive lawsuits, ugly recriminations, and financial ruin.

Where I've found this potential to be at its greatest is with the formation of those businesses where the co-owners are bringing different things to the table. For example, maybe one person is bringing money, another one is going to do the work, and perhaps a third is contributing an invention or patent that's going to make a million dollars. Each person is bringing something to the business, such that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Ironically, however, over time, these very differences can breed resentment among the partners and eventually cause business break-ups.

For example, at the beginning of the above hypothetical venture, the "worker" is getting the best of the deal: the money man risks losing capital, as, to a certain extent, does the inventor. The worker just risks losing his time, but nothing more.

Five successful years later, however, the dynamics may have changed. The capitalist and inventor are enjoying a nice return on their investment. The worker, however, is resentful: the business would stop without him. Whereas the capitalist and contributor have received back their investment (and then some), the worker continues to have to invest his time, effort and labor into the business.

I have also watched similar situations play out in a different manner. I've watched an "idea man", perhaps willing to do the work, who gathers up willing monetary investors. He's promised the investors great potential, and wonderful returns some time in the future. When things get successful, it turns out that he's issued himself so much stock, he effectively controls the company. The investors get little in the way of dividends, because by the time the idea man has paid himself a nice salary and benefits, there's little left. Theoretically, their stock is creating equity, but because their company isn't publicly listed (or, in an alternate scenario I have seen, they learn the shareholders' agreement has a provision requiring them to offer their stock back to the company at preferential rates prior to selling to a public buyer), the investors now have little hope of ever seeing a meaningful return. In other words, the passive investors' investments are held hostage.

Although attorneys do a good job of foreseeing the "worst case" scenario--i.e., what happens when things go awry--we also need to prepare for best case scenarios--i.e., what happens when things are going very well, and the equities have changed.

Here are just a few ideas to allow the continuation of a small business, even when the business contains different types of investors:

1. Provide benchmark dates at which the investments are vested, and any future contributions are paid for at arm's-length. This is a hard idea to pin down, except by way of example. Go back to my initial example of three different investors, each with a very different type of investment. Each investor, theoretically, could be benefited more than the rest, or less than the rest, depending upon how the company was structured. But they could all be treated fairly, if they come up with success benchmarks that allow them to treat their investment as having been fully paid in.

In the example of the worker, the company's organizational agreement could state, for example, that after the company reaches $X sales per year, the worker will be paid a salary--or perhaps, can hire staff and no longer have to contribute his own services. He is no longer captive: he's either now an investor and a paid-employee (in the first example), or else a passive investor like the rest (in the latter example).

For the inventor, perhaps the same agreement should state that after some benchmark (perhaps Y years), the inventor's patent will simply be licensed to the company, on a yearly basis, for a certain sum of money.

In other words, to avoid disparities later in the company's existence, you create a system so that the investors' later contributions of time, effort, or whatever, are compensated on an arm's-length basis.

2. Create, at the outset, scheduled pay-outs or buy-backs. In the other example, of the passive monetary investors, they contribute all the risk, but the idea man, as the business becomes successful, effectively shuts them out and sews up their contribution. Investors should recognize this as a risk, and ask for organizational documents that create some type of guaranteed payout--be it through a guaranteed buy-back, guaranteed dividends, or the like.

3. Create, in the organizational documents, forced buy-out or buy-back provisions. At the very least, you could place in the organizational documents provisions by which you can force a buy-out or buy-back, at an agreed upon price (or agreed upon pricing mechanism) during a certain time period or after a certain triggering event.

Interestingly, of the small business disputes I've seen, at least as many of them stem from business success as do from business failure. When setting up or starting a small business with numerous investors, don't just think about the worst-case scenario: ask yourself, what problems arise if the best case scenario occurs?

Think Before You Invest as a Minority Shareholder

You've got a little extra money in your pocket, and you're looking to invest. Somebody comes to you with a great business idea, and offers to cut you in on it. For just $X, you can own a five percent, 10 percent, 49 percent share in the company, and it has a lot of potential!

I have clients who are approached with these situations every day. Some are wealthy people who are actively searched out to be investment partners in large-money ventures. On the other extreme, some are humble folks, who are considering (or have) poured what little savings they have into a new start-up company. Before you invest as a minority shareholder in a company, consider these tips, and think about the cautionary tales below.

DEFINITION OF MINORITY SHAREHOLDER: a minority shareholder is someone who holds less than a 50 percent ownership interest in a company. I'm using the term loosely to not only include true stockholders in a corporation, but, for example, partners in a partnership or members in a limited liability company. If you hold less than a 50 percent interest in a company, some one or some group of people have the potential to outvote you on company governance matters.

1. What management rights will you have in the company? In consideration of your buying into the company, will you have any rights to control the daily operations of the company, other than your rights as a minority shareholder? Often, the people who start up the company want to retain majority ownership, and are looking to other investors to provide capital, yet still leave control with them. This isn't always bad, but remember, if you're not guaranteed a position as a director or an officer, you're just a shareholder, and one who can be outvoted.

2. What dividend or payout rights will you have in the company? Are there any benchmarks or rights that you'll have to receive money or profits? Too many novice investors blindly invest money in a friend's or acquaintance's speculative company, just to find once they've put their money in, that their money is not bringing them any return. Will you receive any dividends or payments? Or are you just hoping that the value of your investment will go up? Ask these questions at the beginning!

3. What buy/sell rights will you have in the company? In its simplest form, an investor should invest in ownership of a company because he thinks the company will grow, and thus will his investment. However, if you're a minority shareholder, you may not be able to control the direction of the company. What happens if you want to sell out? Can you? Or are you held hostage to the majority interests of the company? A minority interest in a company in which you can't sell your interest is practically worthless.

4. What are the other investors contributing?
Sometimes, the investors trying to get you to invest are contributing their own money, dollar for dollar. Other times, however, the investors are wanting
you to contribute the money, and yet they retain a majority of the stock. This is neither good or bad inherently, but you need to understand. If your $100,000 investment buys you a 49 percent share of a company, and the start-up investor has put in $100,000 yet wants to retain 51 percent ownership, that might be reasonable in some cases. If you're being asked to put up $100,000 for a 10 percent share, and the start-up investor has nothing but his brilliant dream, and wants to retain 60 percent ownership, you need to think about the deal a little harder.

5. Consider a Shareholders' Agreement. If you trust the other investors, and you agree that all interests should be protected, the best thing you could do is to have the attorney setting up the company draw a shareholders' agreement, a buy/sell agreement, or something similar. It, in essence, is an agreement for small companies that is set up to protect the interests of the individual investors. It often guarantees each investor a management position (such as a guaranteed spot on the corporate board of directors), and provides buyout provisions in the event of a dispute.

By way of example, I've recently handled two situations involving investors in small corporations.

In the first case, a tearful woman came in to me after she'd invested in a small corporation. She and a former co-worker had been involved in the dress design business together, and then decided to start their own. The co-worker would get 90 percent ownership, and she, for her smaller monetary contribution, would get 10 percent. They both were supposed to work as employees of the company. Unfortunately, things didn't work out, they got into a dispute, and she was fired as an employee. She was completely shut out of the company's business, and watched as her former friend continued to hire new employees and run the company without her, not providing her any idea of profits or losses. She now wants to be bought out, but under the corporate agreement she entered, the majority partner can buy her interest out with payment, over a long period of time, at a very low interest rate, such that she would likely be paid $100 per month until her interest is paid off in a few years. It's unfortunate, but she did not, when entering into the agreement, make provisions for minority shareholder rights, and has in effect given the majority shareholder money that he really doesn't have to repay.

By contrast, another client of mine hired me before the fact to review a proposed investment for him. This investor had extensive knowledge in science, and owns a chain of stores in his specific field of expertise. He was approached by a scientist and another businessman about going together and starting up a company that would create, market and sell a new invention that the scientist had created. This invention was something my client could visualize, and he knew that, if created, it could save his own business a lot of money, so he knew it was a potentially good idea.

The scientist and businessman wanted my client to invest a large sum of money for a 25 percent interest in the company. If my client desired, he had the right, within a two-year period, to purchase an additional 25 percent interest in the company for a similar sum of money.

I read the documents over numerous times, and spoke to my client about what he visualized the company doing, and what he wanted from the company. I told him I saw a few problems with the agreement:

1. The scientist and businessman were not putting any money into the company, other than their own "sweat equity." Therefore, they had less to lose.
2. The scientist and businessman would each be a director, and my client would be the third director--which meant he could always be outvoted.
3. My client, though putting forth all the money, would not have a majority interest as a shareholder.
4. In fact, the contract was written so that, after a given time, my client had to re-convey a 10 percent interest in the company to the company's employees, therefore guaranteeing that he would become a minority shareholder.

I told my client that I couldn't speak to the wisdom of the business plan, but I didn't like the fact that he was putting up all the money, yet he could be shut out of the control of the company, and furthermore had no way to force returns or the sale of his stock if the business were successful.

We sent a letter back to the gentlemen, nicely telling them that my client was interested in investing, but only if he could have more safety, and outlined some proposals that would protect my client's rights as a shareholder. He never heard from them again, and far from blaming me for "killing" a deal, he thinks that I saved him from potential trouble.

If you have questions about investing in a small company, contact me at wldeaton@vnet.net.