General

Subscribe to General via RSS

As we noted in a previous post (Read Here), the disruption and dysfunction caused by a bad business partner who holds a substantial minority stake in the company can lead to the ultimate failure of the business.[1]  This is especially true when the company founder has no buy-sell agreement in place that will allow him/her to redeem the minority investor’s interest in the company. When the majority owner has no contract right to force the minority investor to exit the business, the owner’s options are essentially limited to: (i) going out of business and dissolving the company, (ii) selling the business to a third party (iii) or selling the majority owner’s interest to another party who will step into the owner’s shoes and take on the task of dealing with the minority investor.

None of these “end the business” options are likely to satisfy a company founder who worked very hard to bring the company to life. This post therefore considers options for the majority owner of the company to consider when no buy-sell agreement exists with the minority investor who has become a major stumbling block in the path to the company’s continued success.

Setting the Stage for the Exit of the Bad Business Partner

The bad business partner may believe that he/she has the upper hand in negotiations with the majority owner. Specifically, at the same time the minority investor is wreaking havoc at the company, the investor is refusing to be bought out or is demanding a grossly inflated price for the purchase of his/her minority stake in the business. In this situation, the majority owner may appear to be “stuck” with no recourse to force the exit of this bad partner and fix the problems the investor is causing at the company.
Continue Reading Partnership Blues: Can a Bad Business Partner be Removed by the Company’s Majority Owner When No Buy-Sell Agreement Exists?

Entrepreneurs launching new companies today take on a significant gamble, because statistics show that roughly 30% of all new start-ups fail within two years, and only half survive for a full five years.  Many businesses fail due to the owners’ inability to meet the challenges of the marketplace, but some start-ups shut down when conflicts arise within the ownership group.  Companies can go under over these ownership disputes even when their governance documents include dispute resolution provisions—if these terms fall short of keeping the business intact.

Given the many business risks that business entrepreneurs face, they should not also have to accept the gamble that a future serious conflict with their co-owners will torpedo the business.   This post therefore focuses on dispute resolution terms that are designed to resolve ownership disputes, but which will preserve the continued operation of the business.  While not fool-proof, the best mechanism for resolving ownership conflicts in our experience on a prompt, confidential and cost-effective basis is through a set of well-crafted fast track arbitration provisions.  These arbitration terms are included in the company agreement (LLC’s), in the bylaws (corporations) or in the limited partnership agreement (limited partnerships), and they are discussed below.

Faster – Prompt Date for Final, Evidentiary Hearing

Litigation will often drag on for months and, in some cases, years, and at great cost.  By contrast, arbitration is a dispute resolution procedure that is created by agreement of the parties, and as a result, the parties can choose to adopt a specific timetable in their arbitration provision that requires the final arbitration hearing to take place on a prompt schedule.  The manner in which a fast-track schedule for the arbitration hearing plays out is described below.

After one of the parties files a demand for arbitration, the arbitration company, which is typically either AAA or JAMS, will assist the parties in selecting the arbitrator, or if the parties opted for a panel, a panel of three arbitrators, to preside over the dispute.  Once the arbitrator or the arbitration panel is appointed, a scheduling conference will be held promptly, and the date for the arbitration hearing will be set at that time.  If the parties require the hearing date to take place within a specified period in the arbitration provision, e.g., 60 or 90 days, the arbitrator or panel will enforce the parties’ agreement and adopt the schedule to which they agreed.  In short, the parties will get what they bargained for, a prompt hearing with no delays/continuances.  
Continue Reading Dispute Resolution for Business Partners: The Arbitration Option—Know When to Hold ‘Em, When to Fold ‘Em, and When to Walk Away

It’s my party, and I’ll cry if I want to
Cry if I want to, cry if I want to
You would cry too if it happened to you.
—Its My Party, by Lesley Gore

Almost five years have passed since the Texas Supreme issued its decision in Ritchie v. Rupe[1] in 2014 abolishing shareholder oppression as a claim under common law by minority shareholders in private Texas companies.  Specifically, in Ritchie, the Supreme Court eliminated a court-ordered buyout as a remedy for minority investors complaining of oppressive conduct by the company’s majority owners.  The legal landscape remains bleak for minority shareholders, and when the five year anniversary of Ritchie arrives in June, minority shareholders still have no legal remedy to secure a buyout of their ownership interest if they failed to obtain a buy-sell agreement or other contract exit right at the time of their investment in the company.

In this blog post, we will review efforts made to address the problems created by the Supreme Court’s holding in Ritchie, both legislatively and in the courts, consider how the predictions the Court made in Ritchie have played out, and discuss the state of the current legal battlefield between minority shareholders and majority owners in Texas private companies.

No Legislative Fix for Ritchie Has Been Adopted or is Pending

In the aftermath of the Ritchie decision, the Texas legislature took a run at creating a statutory fix to address the Court’s removal of a buyout legal remedy for oppressed minority shareholders.  In 2015, the year after Ritchie was issued, Rep. Ron Simmons, a second-term Republican from Denton County, introduced Bill 3168 in the Business and Industry Committee of the Texas House.  This proposed Bill would have applied solely to closely-held entities rather than to all private Texas companies, and the provisions of Bill 3168 were broader than the pre-Ritchie state of the law.

More specifically, as originally proposed, Bill 3168 would have granted broad statutory powers to Texas trial courts, including the right to appoint a “fiscal agent” to report periodically to the court on the operations of the business.  This new type of statutory agent is different than a receiver and would likely be more akin to a monitor. In addition, the Bill intended to provide the oppressed minority shareholder with more than a buyout right as it authorized shareholders to pursue a claim for a dividend to share in the retained earnings stockpiled by the company, as well as the right to recover damages from the majority owner and/or board members who engaged in oppressive conduct that was shown to be harmful to the minority shareholder.
Continue Reading Melancholy Minority Shareholders: Five-Years after Ritchie v. Rupe, No Cause for Celebration by Texas Private Company Investors

By the Interested Director Provision in the Texas Business Organizations Code
By LaCrecia Perkins

“The only way to get rid of temptation is to yield to it.” -Oscar Wilde

“I generally avoid temptation unless I can’t resist it.”  -Mae West

“That which is hateful to you, do not do unto your neighbor.”  -Hillel the Elder

Temptation is powerful.  We all know this well, which is why these quotes by author and bon vivant Oscar Wilde, and actress and legendary sex symbol Mae West evoke nods of agreement.  But giving into temptation can result in significant harm to ourselves and others.  That is why more than 2000 years ago, the revered Jewish religious leader and biblical sage, Rabbi Hillel, implored his followers to treat others as they would want to be treated.

In the modern business world, temptation wins out when managers and majority members of Texas limited liability companies (“LLCs”) exploit their controlling power for their own benefit to the detriment of the company’s minority investors.  These self-serving actions by governing persons may result in breach of fiduciary duty claims being filed against them, causing these governing managers or members to turn to the Texas Business Organizations Code (“TBOC” or the “Code”) in search of a legal defense.  The TBOC does not provide governing persons with a “get out of jail free card,” but the Code does contain an “Interested Director” provision that may be helpful to LLC majority owners and managers who have to defend against breach of fiduciary duty claims.  See TBOC § 101.255.  This post evaluates the scope and the limits of the TBOC’s Interested Director provision.
Continue Reading When Temptation Trumps Restraint: Limits of the Statutory Protection for Texas LLC Managers

Hospitality – the friendly and generous reception and entertainment of guests, visitors, or strangers in which the host receives the guests with goodwill.

It is a common complaint that companies now provide a disappointing level of customer service.  But merely providing good service is not enough for a business to be assured of success. In a superb article on the Skift[1] hospitality website, 6 Basic Lessons in Hospitality From Danny Meyer, Deanna Ting summarizes a discussion held with Mr. Meyer at New York University in which he encourages businesses to go beyond service to providing customers with remarkable hospitality.  Mr. Meyer is a renowned restauranteur and the force behind acclaimed New York based restaurants such as Shake Shack, The Modern, Gramercy Tavern, and Union Square Café.

Ms. Ting’s article reviews six lessons from Mr. Meyer on hospitality, which have broad importance for entrepreneurs.  This post considers lessons for business owners from all types of industries from the discussion with Mr. Meyer at NYU and from his New York Times best-selling book, Setting the Table: The Transforming Power of Hospitality in Business.  Mr. Meyer explains it this way:
Continue Reading Legendary Hospitality: The Danny Meyer (Shake Shack) Approach to Business Success

The majority owners of private Texas limited liability companies (LLC’s) enjoy a mixed blessing when they also manage their companies.  Majority owners have the power to direct their private companies as they deem fit, but when they disregard the interests of minority owners, they may breach their fiduciary duties to the company.  The members of member-managed LLCs and the managers of manager-managed LLCs owe their companies the fiduciary duties of care, loyalty and obedience under Texas law, which does not permit them to disclaim their fiduciary duty of loyalty.  This post discusses significant legal and business issues faced by managers of Texas LLCs in guiding their companies to success while striving to maintain good relations with their minority owners.

Three significant legal and business challenges that LLC managing owners confront are: (i) the degree of control and extent to which minority owners are permitted to block major company decisions, (ii) whether majority owners have total discretion over profits distributions or whether a minimum requirement exists that requires profits distributions and (iii) the level of financial reporting requirements and related issues of transparency.  In regard to these challenges, majority owners who do not unfairly exploit their control over the business, issue profits distributions when appropriate and engage in open communications are more likely to foster harmonious relations with all company owners through both good times and bad.
Continue Reading Heavy is the Head That Wears the Crown: Overcoming Legal & Business Challenges Faced by Majority Owners of Texas Limited Liability Companies

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

Most private company investors are not tax experts, but developing a working knowledge of the potential for the business to generate phantom income is critical to avoiding unwelcome, tax consequences. What is phantom income exactly, and why does it matter?  This Blog post focuses on answering that question to avoid ghoulish tax surprises appearing after Halloween.
Continue Reading Halloween for Private Company Investors: Be Very Afraid of Phantom Income

Since 2014, Energy Transfer Partners LP (“ETP”) has been fighting to hold on to the $535 million judgment it obtained that year against Enterprise Products Partners (“Enterprise”).  Our blog post earlier this year analyzed ETP’s efforts to persuade the Dallas Court of Appeals that ETP and Enterprise, two sophisticated companies in the energy industry, had entered into an unwritten partnership agreement, or as Enterprise referred to it on appeal—a partnership by ambush in disregard of the parties’ written agreements.  
Continue Reading Ducks Don’t Walk, Talk or Sign Partnership Agreements: Dallas Court of Appeals Reverses $535 Million Verdict for ETP

Based on our personal experience handling Business Divorce matters for both majority owners and substantial minority investors in private companies, we have learned firsthand that there are two sides to every story and every Business Divorce matter is unique.  But, we continue to be surprised by instances of outlandish behavior and self-serving conduct by majority owners that are reported to us by minority partners in the business. 
Continue Reading Shareholder Derivative Claims: The Sharp Arrow in the Quiver Still Available to Minority Shareholders In Texas Private Companies