/>iThrowing the baby out with the bath water is a pithy expression that suggests exercising caution when business partners in private companies are seeking to achieve a business divorce. The majority owner and the departing minority partner in the business may both see this process as a “take no prisoners” type of battle. But adopting the view that a zero-sum outcome is the only possible result when a business divorce takes place — with just one clear winner and loser — is not just unnecessary, it can be destructive to the parties’ relationship and to the business. When parties instead consider creative strategies that are designed to optimize the result for both sides, they will ratchet down the emotional tensions involved, preserve their long-term relationship, and avoid doing serious damage to the company’s reputation and performance.
In this post, we consider a variety of approaches to business divorce that provide for a partner exit based on objectively reasonable terms, which will help preserve the company’s value and provide a structure that enhances the company’s longevity.
A Phased Buyout with Security Protections
A business divorce involving a full cash payment up front is rarely optimal for either the majority owner or the minority investor. The company will be reluctant to fund an immediate cash buyout from the business, because this sudden removal of the cash on hand will negatively impact the company’s ongoing operations. The departing minority partner will also likely be concerned that insisting on an all-cash buyout will result in an effort to apply deep discounts to the purchase price, i.e.,force a buyout of the minority interest “on the cheap.”
The reluctance of both parties to push for an immediate payment is why it is customary for business divorce buyouts to take place over an extended period. The parties will implement a valuation process using an objective third-party valuation firm to determine the enterprise value of the company; in some cases, both the company and the minority investor will retain business valuation experts to compare reports to achieve an objective resolution of the company value. Once the value has been agreed on, the parties will put in place a multi-year payment plan for the purchase of the investor’s interest. The investor will also want some form of security in the event of a default in payment, and this can be provided in a number of ways. Some examples include providing a pledged interest in some of the company’s assets or receivables, the majority owner providing a personal guaranty, or the unpaid purchase amount due could be subject to a security interest in a portion of the company’s stock.
Performance Based Buyouts
When business divorces do become contentious, the business partners are usually in conflict over the company’s value — typically when the majority owner has presented a buyout figure that the minority investor considers much too low. When this valuation dispute results in an impasse between the parties, the filing of a lawsuit may seem like the inevitable next step. But moving to the courthouse is not the only way to resolve this valuation conflict. .
One way to head off litigation over valuation is to provide for the minority investor to receive additional payments that increase the total purchase price paid for the investor’s interest based on the company’s future performance. The majority owner (or company) still acquires the full ownership interest of the minority investor at a closing, but the investor will also receive a (negotiated) percentage of the company’s future revenue for some period of time.
This is known as a revenue-sharing agreement – the purchase price involves payment to the investor of a fixed amount with additional payments that are based on the company’s future performance. The percentage of the revenue share does not have to be flat, i.e., it could be 15% of the revenues the first year, 10% in year two, and 5% in year three — all of these amounts are subject to negotiation. Further, the parties can also include a high-low arrangement that adds both a floor and a ceiling for the future payments. In this scenario, the investor is guaranteed to receive a total minimum amount based on future payments that are made regardless of the company’s actual revenue, which sets the floor for the total purchase price to be paid. If the investor negotiates to include a floor as a guaranteed minimum payment, however, the majority owner will then include a cap that will establish the maximum amount that the investor has the potential to receive based on the revenue share.
Dividing Assets, Markets or Clients Than Cash
One of the most creative approaches to achieving a business divorce is to structure the buyout based on the assets of the business rather than using cash alone to fund the purchase of the departing partner’s interest. This is an unusual option that will not work in many companies or where partners do not wish to continue operating any part of the business, but when the facts make it possible, this path may help to avoid conflicts and/or a legal battle between the partners.
In this type of business divorce, the parties will evaluate all the parts of the business and then divide certain company assets between them. There are no limits to the creativity involved in this process, and the partners can decide how to divide assets, including, but not limited to, the geographic regions or territories in which the company operates, the company’s different product lines, different groups of employees working at the company, or different customers the partners are working with in the business.
When the partners divide assets, they will both usually continue to work in the industry, and they will divvy up the company’s territories, product lines, customers and/or its employees in a manner that they determine is appropriate. This is obviously a more complicated scenario than a simple monetary buyout, but if the partners remain on good terms when they are conducting their business divorce, this type of asset division may be less contentious because each partner will receive the assets they need from the company to be successful as they move forward in the same or similar industry.
Conclusion
Business divorces often present emotional challenges for the partners, particularly when they have been in business together for years. But if the partners approach their separation in an effort to secure a win-win outcome, they can achieve a productive transition and avoid personal animosity that could negatively impact the business. These creative exits include a variety of potential structures such as phased buyouts based on future performance, asset-based divisions, and longer-term buyouts. These approaches share the common goals of preserving the value of the company and achieving a reasonable exit price that is acceptable to both partners.
