Photo of Ladd Hirsch

lhirsch@winstead.com
214.745.5130

Ladd Hirsch is a solution-oriented trial attorney with more than 30 years experience representing companies and high net worth business clients in complex litigation cases and arbitration matters. Ladd is tenacious and pragmatic for his clients in both the courtroom and boardroom in seeking results that meet their short and long-term business objectives. Read More

Ladd has extensive experience prosecuting and defending complex business litigation matters, including disputes involving claims for breach of contract, business fraud, violations of fiduciary duties, breach of non-compete covenants, theft of trade secrets and business defamation. He has litigated claims arising in all of the following industries: real estate, manufacturing, oil and gas, healthcare, commercial lending, computer software and technology, construction, retail sales, insurance, multi-level marketing, beer distribution, food service, and video games.

Since the late 1990's, Ladd has focused a significant portion of his practice handling Business Divorce disputes and related litigation for majority owners and minority investors in substantial private Texas companies. In these Business Divorce matters, Ladd files and defends claims against fiduciaries (officers, directors, managers, general partners and trustees), including claims for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of the entity governance documents and shareholder derivative claims. In this Business Divorce practice, Ladd works together regularly with family law attorneys and their clients to assist them with a wide variety of business and complex property issues that arise in family law proceedings.

Ladd has tried cases to judgment in both state and federal courts, including federal courts located in New York and Chicago, and he has argued cases on appeal at both the state and federal levels in Texas. Throughout his career, Ladd has represented clients in business cases under hourly, contingent and hybrid fee arrangements. Ladd has also been retained in a number of matters by other attorneys to serve as an expert witness on the subject of recoverable legal fees.

In her thoughtful column in the January edition of the Texas Bar Journal titled, “Do You Suffer From Impostor Syndrome,” lawyer coach Martha McIntire Newman, focuses on a topic that has too long flown under the radar.  Ms. Newman describes this condition as “a state of chronic self-doubt that causes lawyers to fear they will be exposed as incompetent even though the evidence of their success is obvious to their colleagues and clients.”  TBJ, Jan. 2019, p. 56. TopLawyerCoach.com   This anxiety causes even “successful lawyers to second-guess themselves no matter how well they perform.”

The Impostor Syndrome discussed in Ms. Newman’s column is not limited to the legal field.  We have encountered many business owners, executives and entrepreneurs who have struggled, at times, with crippling self-doubt.  Ms. Newman quotes former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz: “Very few people, whether you’ve been in that [CEO] job before or not, get into the seat and believe today that they are now qualified to be the CEO.  They’re not going to tell you that, but it’s true.”  For business leaders who face doubts resulting from the Impostor Syndrome, this post offers three suggestions to consider in addition to the sage advice provided by Ms. Newman. Continue Reading Surviving The Impostor Syndrome: Staying on Course as a Successful Business Leader

Conflicts with business partners are not just a serious distraction for majority owners of private companies, these ownership disputes can be expensive, time-consuming and harmful to the long-term prospects of the business.  The start of a new year is therefore a great time for majority owners to consider whether there are steps they can take to head off disagreements with business partners. Fortunately, the answer is yes, and this post looks at New Year’s resolutions that majority owners may want to consider that will lessen or completely avoid these ownership conflicts.

The Sweat Equity Problem

The first New Year’s resolution majority owners may want to make is to decline to issue  “sweat equity” in the company.  Sweat equity refers to the grant of an ownership stake in the company to employees or outside consultants who provide services to the company, but who do not provide any financial capital for their interest in the business.  Sweat equity is granted most often by new or emerging companies that are short on cash, and they therefore issue stock rather than paying compensation for the services needed.  In other cases, owners provide sweat equity to longtime employees as part of a succession plan. Continue Reading New Year’s Resolutions for Majority Owners: Promoting Peace With Partners in 2019

When a private equity (PE) firm buys the controlling interest in a private business, the purchase often includes an earn-out provision which calls for the owner to remain active in the business for some period of time. The use of an earn-out provision can seem like a win-win for both parties, because it allows the PE firm to buy the company for a lower purchase price and provides the business owner with the opportunity to secure a substantial additional payment if the company achieves certain agreed financial performance targets after the sale.  The problem with this rosy picture is that earn-out provisions are a common cause of disputes and litigation over whether the earn-out requirements were met after the purchase and whether the owner is entitled to the additional payment.

This post focuses on conflicts that frequently arise between PE firms and owners over earn-out provisions and suggests changes for both PE Firms and owners to consider, which may reduce or eliminate these post-purchase conflicts.   Continue Reading PE Firms: The Earn-Out Conundrum—Avoiding Post-Purchase Conflicts With Private Company Sellers

In the private company world, the buck stops with the majority owners, who generally hold the reins to running the business.  In our experience, however, it is not uncommon for some majority owners to push the limits of their control by engaging in self-dealing transactions that are for their own benefit.  The self-interested transactions in which majority owners may engage can take many different forms, including paying excessive bonuses to themselves, directing the company to enter into “sweetheart” deals with their other companies, taking company opportunities for their own gain, and using company assets or personnel free of charge.

When minority investors seek legal recourse from abuse of authority by its majority owners, the controlling owners will often point to a little-known Texas statute, which they contend renders them immune from liability for their actions.  See Texas Business Organizations Code § 101.255.  As we say in Texas, that dog won’t hunt.  This post explains why the existence of Section 101.255 does not provide majority owners with a “get out of jail free” card, and why this statute does not validate their improper conduct when they engaged in self-dealing. Continue Reading The Private Company Cookie Jar: Who Decides How Many Cookies The Majority Owners Get to Eat (And Which Ones)?

The statistics are grim on relationships remaining intact between business partners.  This month’s edition of Inc. magazine cites Noam Wasserman, entrepreneurship professor at USC’s Marshall School of Business, reporting that 10% of co-founders end their business relationship in less than one year and 45% break-up within four years.  While these statistics are focused on two-person owned companies, break-ups are at least as common among businesses with multiple owners.  Faced with these distressing figures, this post focuses on concrete actions that business partners can take at the outset when their company is formed or when an investment is made, which our experience teaches will improve their prospects for maintaining long-term business relationships.

Operational issues and the vision for the company can definitely lead to disputes, but in many (if not most) cases, the crux of the conflict between business partners comes down to a disagreement over money—how the financial pie will be split.   Our suggestions therefore key on how the company’s finances are handled.  The starting place is to put an exit plan in place at the outset of the relationship —a Buy-Sell agreement that governs any future Business Divorce.  This “corporate pre-nup” will help avoid litigation and a huge distraction for the company when a partner departs.  We have written extensively on this topic in previous posts (see links below), and adopting a partner exit plan is essential.

But the Buy-Sell Agreement only comes into play when business partners are separating.  There are three specific steps that partners can take when their relationship begins, which will help limit their conflicts and, perhaps, avoid the need for a Business Divorce in the future. These steps are: (1) adopt a dividend/distribution plan, (2) implement an executive compensation plan or formula and require annual valuations of the company prepared by an independent business valuation firm.  Each of these actions is discussed below. Continue Reading Can We Keep the Band Together: Seeking Long-Term Harmony Among Business Partners

July 2018

A search for the perfect buy-sell provision for use by private company owners and investors may be akin to hunting for a unicorn, because the business objectives of majority owners, on one side, and minority investors in the business, on the other, are rarely, if ever, fully aligned.  But, if this search is limited to focusing solely on the terms of a buy-sell provision that addresses the critical business concerns of both majority owners and minority investors, that task is not beyond the rainbow.   What is clear is that majority owners and minority investors share an interest in putting a buy-sell agreement in place at the start of their business relationship.  This post therefore covers the essential terms that owners and investors will both want to consider in a provision that strikes a balance in a mutually acceptable buy-sell agreement.

Continue Reading The Perfect Buy-Sell Provision: Is it a Unicorn, or is There a One-Size-Fits-All for Every Company

By Ladd Hirsch[1]

Spousal consent provisions are commonly found in the governance documents of private businesses, e.g., corporate bylaws, limited partnership and LLC agreements.  Private company owners include these consent provisions in their agreements, because they do not want to find themselves suddenly stuck with a new business partner when one of their co-shareholders, partners or members goes through a divorce.  Whether the spousal consent provision will hold up in court when challenged by a spouse claiming unfair treatment, however, depends on a number of factors, and the frequent use of these provisions provides no safe harbor.

This post examines the legal considerations a court will focus on when a spousal consent provision is challenged in a divorce proceeding and also considers issues that arise when the company seeks to enforce the provision against a divorcing spouse.  We conclude the post by offering suggestions for drafting a more effective (enforceable) consent provision. Continue Reading Family Law Post:  Till Death Do Us Part, But Will The Spousal Consent That My Spouse Signed in Our LLC Agreement Hold Up in Our Divorce

The number of businesses that fold due to bad partnerships is staggering.  In some cases, they are charlatans, in others inept business people, and others find themselves unable to scale with any growth.

Michael E. Gerber, World’s No. 1 Small Business Guru according to Inc. Magazine.

For all the success stories of start-up businesses that made it big, they are far outnumbered by the many companies that failed to achieve lasting success.   According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, approximately 50% of new companies are out of business within five years, and only one-third of new businesses last for a full 10 years.  The causes of these failures are many, but one of the biggest challenges that new, jointly-owned businesses face are conflicts between the company’s owners—it is difficult for any business to survive a bad partnership.

While the importance of finding a good business partner is well-known, what is less understood are the characteristics of a good business partner.  Our views on this important issue are based on experience.  In our Business Divorce practice, we have worked with both owners and investors in  hundreds of private companies, and this vantage point has allowed us to observe first-hand both remarkable business successes, as well as epic company failures.  From our position in the trenches advising owners and investors, we have concluded that the best business partners are: accountable, adaptable and accessible.  This post takes a look at these three traits in more depth. Continue Reading With Friends Like These, Enemies Aren’t Needed: Character Traits of Great Business Partners

It is common for divorce settlements to include a transfer between spouses of an ownership interest in a private company, but the frequency of this transaction does not mean that it should be taken lightly. In fact, transferring a private company ownership stake in a divorce settlement often includes heightened business risks beyond the sale of a business interest between two unaffiliated parties.  This post therefore focuses on critical business risks present for both the spouse acquiring the ownership interest and the spouse who is transferring the interest in the company.  These business risks should be discussed with the spouses’ family law or business counsel to ensure that they are addressed in the parties’ divorce settlement. Continue Reading Family Law Post: Transferring Company Ownership Interests in Divorce Settlements—A Transaction in Which Both Spouses Need to Exercise Significant Caution

Peace is not the absence of conflict, but the ability to cope with conflict by peaceful means.

— President Ronald Reagan, Commencement Address at Eureka College in Illinois, May 9, 1982.

The business relationship between private company majority owners and minority investors does not have to be a zero sum game—there are positives available for both sides in their business dealings.  But, a win-win approach for majority owners and minority investors needs to begin at the outset when they negotiate and adopt a buy-sell agreement at the time the investment is made in the company, which provides terms that will govern the eventual exit of the minority investor from the business.

A buy-sell agreement will not eliminate all conflicts between company owners and investors, but signing off on a “corporate pre-nup,” which carefully balances the rights of both parties should help lessen the potentially contentious nature of the investor’s ultimate departure from the company.  This blog post therefore reviews some of the critical terms that majority owners and minority investors will want to include in their buy-sell agreement to provide for a more peaceful future Business Divorce between them.  Those terms are listed and discussed below: Continue Reading Threading the Needle:  A Win-Win Buy-Sell Agreement for Private Company Majority Owners and Minority Investors