Corporate Archives - Adishian Law

Selling your business can be a significant milestone for any entrepreneur or business owner. However, when navigating the process of selling your business in California, it is crucial to be aware of the legal considerations involved. This blog article provides a review of some of the key legal aspects to consider when selling your business in California.

1. Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs):

Before sharing confidential information (i.e. trade secrets, proprietary processes, customer lists, etc.) about your business with potential buyers, it is vital to have them sign a well-drafted Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA). A well-drafted NDA protects your business value by clarifying the handling of confidential information and remedies for breaching the NDA.

2. Valuation and Due Diligence:

Having a supportable rationale for the value of your business is essential for a successful sale. Working with experienced professionals, such as valuation firms, bankers, brokers or appraisers, can help establish a fair market value or a range of fair market value. Additionally, conducting thorough due diligence, including financial audits and legal reviews, is crucial to uncover any potential liabilities or legal issues that could affect valuation and ultimately, the sale.

3. Asset Purchase Agreement or Stock Purchase Agreement

In California, the sale of a business can be structured as an asset purchase or stock purchase. Each option has different legal implications. An asset purchase agreement (APA) involves selling specific assets and liabilities of the business, while a stock purchase agreement (SPA) involves selling the ownership shares of the business entity. Consult with your attorney, CPA and other advisors to evaluate potential tax consequences, liability transfers, and legal obligations associated with each structure.

4. Intellectual Property Rights:

Ensure that your business’s intellectual property (IP) rights, such as trademarks, copyrights, and patents, are protected during the sale process. Conduct a comprehensive IP audit on the front end to identify all protectable (and potentially protectable) IP, and to address any potential infringement issues, pending litigation, or license agreements that could impact valuation and sale.

5. Employees and Contractual Obligations:

Review and address any existing employment agreements, non-compete agreements, vendor contracts, or lease agreements that may affect the sale. Analyzing compliance with state and federal employment laws, including providing appropriate notice to employees, and addressing potential severance, bonuses owed, wage and hour liabilities or retention agreements is crucial.

Conclusion:

Selling your business in California can be a wonderful, rewarding milestone on your entrepreneurial journey and it involves navigating numerous, serious legal considerations. From protecting confidential information with NDAs to structuring the sale agreement and addressing employment obligations, understanding the legal aspects is vital for a successful transaction. Seeking guidance the experienced mergers and acquisitions business attorneys at Adishian Law can increase the probability of maximizing the value of your business while minimizing the risk. By carefully addressing these legal considerations, and many others that may arise, you can proceed with confidence and achieve a successful outcome in selling your business in California.

ABOUT ADISHIAN LAW GROUP, P.C.

Adishian Law Group is a California law firm with a statewide M&A practice led by Chris Adishian. To see past transactions, please view our Case Studies.

For more information about this article, or if you need help with your sale or acquisition, please contact Chris Adishian:

EL SEGUNDO, CA (December 31, 2017)—Adishian Law Group Advises Pioneer Magnetics on Sale of Business.

Adishian Law Group is pleased to announce the sale of Pioneer Magnetics’ power supply business to United States Technologies-Aldetec Holdings Company (“UST-Aldetec”).

“This transaction was an opportunity to represent a truly remarkable sixty year old, Santa Monica-based family business that designs, manufactures and sells mission-critical power supply products to a global customer base” says Attorney Chris Adishian.

On behalf of our client, Adishian Law Group led the legal work on the transaction from initial letter of intent (LOI) through Closing. “Like many family business sales, this transaction involved many stakeholders, and we coordinated our representation with other attorney retained to advise the shareholder’s family on matters relating to the sale” stated Adishian.

The firm’s work included included negotiating, draft or reviewing the following documents: Letter of Intent, Deal Memo, Asset Purchase Agreement, Schedules, Escrow Agreement, Bill of Sale, IP Assignment and Assumption Agreement, Transition Services Agreement and a variety of post-Closing matters.

About Pioneer Magnetics

Founded in 1957 by Dr. Allen B. Rosenstein, over the course of 60 years Pioneer Magnetics built a global business designing and manufacturing the highest quality switching power supplies. PMI’s power supply business offers low voltage and high current products ranging from < 1,000 Watts to > 30KW per box. COTS, isolated and non-isolated, intelligence as well as “thousands” of combinations, such as racks/power shelves, are available in standard and unique sizes.

About UST-Aldetec

UST-Aldetec is a consolidation of companies brought together to provide superior services and products to our Defense and Commercial customers. Together they are expert at RF detection, Frequency Conversion, Broadband Amplification, Power management, and repair/re-engineering of subsystems for obsolescence mitigation and extending system lifetime. UST-Aldetec teams can design, manufacture and support products seamlessly and rapidly. Their design turn averages less than 6 months from receiving a specification. Our goal is to provide high quality subsystems to our customers at an affordable price, and to keep them running with an exceptional MTBF. UST-Aldetec is a certified small business, AS-9100 certified with over 40,000 Square feet of manufacturing space.

About Adishian Law Group, P.C.

Adishian Law Group is a California law firm with a statewide M&A practice led by Chris Adishian. To see other transactions, please view our Case Studies and review other M&A Press Releases.

For more information about this transaction, contact Chris Adishian:

This article focuses on the concept of unequal bargaining power. Unequal bargaining power occurs throughout business and life. Being aware of when you are facing unequal bargaining power will help you strategize for your best possible outcome and lessen your risk.

Case Study: “Hitching Your Wagon (“Business”) to a Star (“SuperNova”)”

Partnering with a dominant corporation (SuperNova to use an astronomy analogy) by joining their eco-system can often be a smart and fast way to scale a business.

These positives however, are often offset by a loss of bargaining power, which shows up as a shifting of risks onto to the weaker party.

The underlying contracts are often very one-sided (in their favor) and can be legally revoked or altered almost at will. Whenever entering into such a relationship, you will want to look at the future risk of cash flows.

Can my (dominant corporation) partner change terms?
If so, do I get notice, or can it be overnight?
If so, what happens to my business?

If you decide to hitch your business to a economic Supernova, it is important to take steps to maintain the certainty of your future cash flows and quickly diversify your company’s dependence upon one relationship for its growth or existence. You will want to consult with a solid business lawyer to review contracts and advise you as to potential risks as well as steps to mitigate those risks.

About Adishian Law Group, P.C.

Adishian Law Group (https://adishianlaw.com) is a California law firm with a statewide practice in the areas of Corporate law, Employment law, Real Estate law and Mediation Services. As of November 2015, the firm has represented corporate and individual clients located across 22 California counties, 13 States outside of California and 9 foreign countries in over 480 legal matters. Adishianlaw.com is one of the oldest continually operating law firm websites on the Internet. The firm serves its clientele via three offices located in the major business hubs of El Segundo, Palo Alto and San Francisco.

For more information about this case, contact Chris Adishian:

If you are an entrepreneur, you need to understand risk management and Insurance. Risk management and insurance knowledge is essential for any business owner, asset owner or executive charged with running the enterprise.

Are you a small business? These days that is generally viewed as any business below $50M in annual revenue. Are you insured? The answer is always YES. The question is how…

If you have not purchased insurance, then you are “self-insured” – essentially relying on a combination of faith, your business cash flow and assets, and your personal cash flow and assets. Once you have a business of any size, it is wise to defend that business and cash flow with a combination of law and insurance. The foundation of a long term successful business is growing, recurring cash flows. Your cash flow cannot grow if it is always paying liabilities, and it won’t recur if one of the liabilities put you out of business.

Two components of your business advisory team should be a solid business lawyer and an experienced commercial insurance agent.

About Adishian Law Group, P.C.

For more information about this article, contact Chris Adishian:

Selling a minority interest in a privately held business in California must be handled thoughtfully. First, if you are able to sell a minority interest in a privately held business for a profit (whether small or substantial) you are already on a good path. This article addresses some considerations for an individual minority owner who is also an employee.

The good news is that you are getting paid for your hard work and getting a return on your investment. These are the rewards that capitalism provides. The bad news is that your Company may try to limit your ability to own and operate a similar business for a period of years or within a specific geographic region through a non-compete agreement.

You may say, “Wait, I read ‘Non-Competition Clauses In California: It’s No Contest after Edwards,’ which says non-compete agreements are void in California.” They are ….for pure employees. However, there are narrow exceptions under 16601, 16602 and 16602.5 which provide that a seller of “substantially all” of his/her/its assets, goodwill or interest in a business “may agree with the buyer to refrain from carrying on a similar business within a specified geographic area in which the business so sold, or that of the business entity, division, or subsidiary has been carried on, so long as the buyer, or any person deriving title to the goodwill or ownership interest from the buyer, carries on a like business therein.”

Here, there are elements of both the employee relationship and the owner relationship. Despite being an “owner” many “owner-employees” are not financially independent such that they can afford to not work for an extended period of time, even with a substantial payout from the sale of their shares — taxes, mortgages, school tuition and debt incurred during the formation and growth of the business all add up quickly. Therefore, the owner-employee must tread carefully so as to not restrict his or her future ability to earn a living or maintain his or her lifestyle when agreeing to sell his or her shares.

On the one hand the owner-employee is often not required to agree to any and every restriction, on the other hand the employer is often not required to repurchase the shares. The “may“ language will naturally result in a negotiation of the future restrictions on the activity of the owner-employee, which will often become a material business point affecting the purchase price paid for to the owner-employee for the shares or whether the sale will even be consummated at all.

Adishian Law Group, P.C. assists owners of privately held companies in the negotiation and sale of their shares or membership interests to maximize the value of their ownership interest while allowing them reasonable freedom to pursue their next entrepreneurial dream or investment. If you are contemplating the sale of your interest in a corporation, limited liability company or partnership, we recommend that you consult and attorney before concluding the purchase and sale agreements.

About Adishian Law Group, P.C.

Adishian Law Group is a California law firm with a statewide practice in the areas of Corporate law, Employment law, Real Estate law and Mediation Services. Adishianlaw.com is one of the oldest continually operating law firm websites on the Internet. The firm serves its clientele via three offices located in the major business hubs of El Segundo, Palo Alto and San Francisco. As of March 2013, Adishian Law Group, P.C. has represented individual and corporate clients located across 20 California counties, 4 States outside of California and 9 foreign countries — in over 340 legal matters.

For more information about this topic or to speak with Chris Adishian:

Selling a your minority interest in a privately held business in California must be handled thoughtfully. First, if you are able to sell a minority interest in a privately held business for a profit (whether small or substantial) you are already on a good path. This article addresses some considerations for an individual minority owner only (e.g. not an owner-employee).

You may say, “Wait, I read ‘Non-Competition Clauses In California: It’s No Contest after Edwards,’ which says non-compete agreements are void in California.” They are ….for employees.

However, there are narrow exceptions under 16601, 16602 and 16602.5 which provide that a seller of “substantially all” of his/her/its assets, goodwill or interest in a business “may agree with the buyer to refrain from carrying on a similar business within a specified geographic area in which the business so sold, or that of the business entity, division, or subsidiary has been carried on, so long as the buyer, or any person deriving title to the goodwill or ownership interest from the buyer, carries on a like business therein.”

Due to the “may“ language this will naturally result in a negotiation of the future restrictions on the activity of the seller, which will often become a material business point affecting the pruchase price paid for the Seller’s shares or whether the sale will even be consummated.

About Adishian Law Group, P.C.

For more information about this topic or to speak with Chris Adishian:

The concept of ownership is deeply woven into the American Dream — e.g. own a home, own public stock, own bonds, own a business — so deeply woven in fact that sometimes “ownership” becomes the goal regardless of the consequences attendant to that “ownership.” Yes, when done properly, with due attention to the risks, rewards and ROI (return on investment), ownership can create equity expansion and increase net worth like few other opportunities in our economy.

However, poorly thought out investments in privately held Companies can lead to “dead money”, where the only “return” is pride of ownership and you cannot get your money out. That is, you get to tell your friends and family that you are an “owner of this Company” but in fact you see no financial benefit to this ownership at all! Even worse, such investments can result in a complete loss of the capital invested. Either way, the money is effectively gone, and you are unable to use it in another productive investment. Bad result.

Some points to consider before investing in a privately held company:

Will I ever see a return on my investment?
How will I see that return? (Dividends, interest, appreciation?)
How likely is it that I will actually see that return?
Will I ever get my original investment back?
Can I sell my stock to somebody if I want/need my money (or some of it) back?
At what price can I sell my stock?
How long will that take?
There are many other issues to consider as well.

Adishian Law Group, P.C. assists investors in privately held companies in maximizing the value of their ownership interest and minimizing the risk of capital loss or “dead money.” We assist with the “capital allocation decisions” for both majority and minority shareholder positions, as well as subsequent ongoing management of these investments. If you are contemplating an investment in a privately held company, or you are already a minority investor, we would be happy to talk with you about your options for increasing the value of your shares.

About Adishian Law Group, P.C.

For more information about this topic or to speak with Chris Adishian:

Minority shareholder rights in California include protections from oppressive conduct by the majority shareholder.

California Corporation Code § 1800 provides several grounds for involuntary dissolution. A court may grant involuntary dissolution where (1) “[t]hose in control of the corporation have been guilty of or have knowingly countenanced persistent and pervasive fraud, mismanagement or abuse of authority or persistent unfairness toward any shareholders or its property is being misapplied or wasted by its directors or officers.” § 1800(b)(4), and (2) “liquidation is reasonably necessary for the protection of the rights or interests of the complaining shareholder or shareholders.” § 1800)(b(5). See also Bauer v. Bauer, 46 Cal.App.4th 1113, 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 377, Stuparich v. Harbor Furniture Mfg., Inc. 83 Cal.App.4th 1268, 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 313, 2000 Daily Journal D.A.R. 10,657.

Involuntary corporate dissolution under subdivision (b)(4) requires a showing that those in control of the corporation have been guilty of, or have knowingly countenanced, “persistent and pervasive fraud, mismanagement or abuse of authority or persistent unfairness toward any shareholders,” or that the corporation’s property “is being misapplied or wasted by its directors or officers.”

Bauer described the course of conduct that satisfies the definition of the improper “squeezing out” of a minority shareholder, thus entitling a minority shareholder to dissolution of the corporation to protect his or her interests. The court took its definition of a from Marsh’s California Corporation Law, the portion quoted by the Bauer court is below:

“The term ‘squeeze-out’ is . . . generally intended to describe a situation where the majority controlling shareholders, who are also the principal officers of a corporation, engage in a course of conduct which is designed to exclude a minority shareholder or shareholders both from participation in the conduct of the corporate business and from the economic benefits derived therefrom . . . The conduct most typically takes the form of refusing to pay any dividends on the corporate stock, refusing to permit the minority shareholder to have any corporate office or position on the board of directors . . . , and the payment of large salaries to the controlling shareholders who are the principal officers of the corporation . . . Obviously it makes a great deal of difference whether dividends had once been paid on a regular basis, but were stopped; whether the minority shareholder had a job with the corporation from which he was fired; and whether the controlling majority shareholders increased their own officers’ salaries, after the rift appeared and the dividends were terminated.” 2 Marsh’s California Corporation Law (3d ed. 1995) § 11.46, 958-960

About Adishian Law Group, P.C.

For more information about this topic or to speak with Chris Adishian:

Minority shareholder rights in California include protections from a breach of fiduciary duty by the majority shareholder.

Majority shareholders may be held liable for damages for breach of a fiduciary obligation to minority shareholders, Jones v. H. F. Ahmanson & Co., 1 Cal.3d 93, 81 Cal.Rptr. 592, 460 P.2d 464; Brown v. Halbert, 271 A.C.A. 307, 316, 76 Cal.Rptr. 781; and 3 Witkin, Summary of Calif. Law (1960) Corporations, s 99, p. 2390 (1967 Supp. p. 998). A majority shareholder breaches his fiduciary duties to the minority when he uses his control to distribute a disproportionate share of corporate profits (whether in the form of a dividend of excessive executive compensation), depriving the minority of its fair share of corporate profits. See Jara v. Suprema Meats (2004) 121 C.A.4th 1238, 18 C.R.3d 187; Witkin Summary of California Law, Tenth Edition 2. [§ 181].

In Jara, the court found that a minority shareholder had the right to bring an individual action against the corporation for excessive compensation paid to the two other shareholders, who were also executives and directors of the corporation. The court stated, “The objective of encouraging intracorporate resolution of disputes and protecting managerial freedom becomes meaningless where defendants constitute the entire complement of the board of directors and all the corporate officers.” See Jara, supra, at 1259.

About Adishian Law Group, P.C.

For more information about this topic or to speak with Chris Adishian:

Are you considering filing a complaint against a California Corporation for money owed to you or your clients? Who can be held liable? Can only the corporate entity be named as a defendant? Can individual shareholders, directors or officers also be named as defendants? Can the alter-ego doctrine be applied to non-profit corporations?

Generally, California corporate law encourages business ventures, risk-taking, and entrepreneurial activity by limiting liability exposure to the assets of the corporation.
But this is not an absolute protection. Courts will disregard the corporate entity, allowing for individual shareholders, directors or officers (i.e. the “alter-egos”) to be held liable in certain circumstances. This is also known as “piercing the corporate veil.”

It is well settled that California courts can pierce the corporate veil when both of the following two requirements are met:

Unity of Interests – The shareholders in question have treated the corporation as their “alter ego,” rather than as a separate entity; and
Inequitable Result – Upholding the corporate entity and allowing for the shareholders to dodge personal liability for its debts would “sanction a fraud or promote an injustice.” Automotriz del Golfo de California v. Resnick (1957)

In California, courts apply a factor-by-factor test to determine whether “alter-ego” liability is appropriate. These factors are laid out in the case of Associated Vendors Inc. v. Oakland Meat Packing, Co. (1962).

Did the individual Defendant(s) act in bad faith?
Did the individuals contract with another with the intent to avoid performance by using a corporate entity as a shield against personal liability?
Did the individuals divert assets from a corporation by or to a stockholder or other person or entity to the detriment of creditors?
Domination of the corporation by a few key individuals?
Did the individuals and corporation use the same office or business location?
Did the individuals and the corporation employ the same attorney?
Did the individuals use the entity to procure labor, services and merchandise for another person or entity?
Did the individuals fail to adequately capitalize the corporation?
Did the individuals fail to maintain minutes or adequate corporate records?
Will there be an inequitable result if the court fails to pierce?

The burden of establishing alter-ego liability is on the plaintiff. Absent factors supporting individual liability, courts are reluctant to pierce the corporate veil because “alter-ego liability is fundamentally at odds with the general rule that dejure (ie. as a matter of law) corporation is a legal entity separate from its founders and owners; and the law specifically permits owners to incorporate a business for the very purpose of shielding them from its liabilities.” Las Palmas Associates v. Las Palmas Center Associates; Rutter Guide.

However, California courts have “followed a liberal policy of applying the alter-ego doctrine where the equities and justice of the situation appear to call for it.” First Western Bank & Trust Co. v. Bookasta (1968). In practice, the alter-ego doctrine is usually applied “where there are only a few shareholders and they have not respected their corporation’s separate identity.” When evaluating alter-ego liability, courts do not make a distinction between forms of corporations, and the doctrine applies equally to non-profit corporations and for-profit corporations.

Case References: Associated Vendors Inc. v. Oakland Meat Packing, Co. (1962); Automotiz del Golfo de California v. Resnick; Las Palmas Associates v. Las Palmas Center Associates; First Western Bank & Trust Co. v. Bookasta

About Adishian Law Group, P.C.

For more information about this topic or to speak with Chris Adishian: