Categories
Corporate

[Video] Share transfer restrictions – Learn the practical stuff, understand the legal debates

A corporate lawyer’s job includes facilitating mergers and investments by and into businesses. Really experienced corporate lawyers become extremely familiar with shareholders’ agreements and joint-venture agreements but young corporate lawyers and law students working at corporate law firm internships are known to look at terms like ROFR, ROFO, tag-along, and drag-along with wonder.

These different types of share transfer restrictions are a massive and complicated topic. To make it easier to understand, we spoke to Arjun Rajgopal (Principal Associate, Khaitan & Co.) and Umakanth V., an Associate Professor at National University Singapore, and among the most respected names in Indian corporate law.

What we have below are two videos which contain a completely lucid, simplified, and practical explanation of shareholder restrictions. In the first part, we discuss their purpose, their different types, and how they work.

In the second part, we look at how Indian laws have treated share transfer restrictions and the massive debate over their enforceability. What did the Companies Act, 1956 say about them and how have things changed with the new Companies Act, 2013?

If you want to be a corporate lawyer, you cannot afford to miss these two videos.

 

Categories
Corporate

Governance rights, anti-dilution rights, exit mechanisms and other key elements of a shareholders’ agreement

PrivateEquityLawyer_AngiraSinghviShareholders’ agreements govern the rights and obligations of the shareholders. The company is also made a party to such agreements so as to make it binding on the company. Among other things, they set out the various rights of shareholders and provide for the conduct of business, the transfer of securities, and how to resolve deadlocks. Often, the company is also made a party to such an agreement and in an investment transaction, this is done at a “closing” by holding board and shareholders’ meetings that result in the amending of the original articles of association.

Governance rights

These rights set out the level of control that a private equity investor may exercise in the management of the target company.

The common methods of exercising control include:

– the ability to appoint the investor’s representatives to the board

The number of such representatives depends on the level of investment. In cases where the number of representatives is less than 50 per cent but more than 20 per cent, the investor attempts to ensure that the quorum required for any meeting cannot be complete without some or all of its representatives present and voting.

Where the parties cannot agree on such compulsory quorum requirements, a list of “affirmative vote” items is set out. These are items that the board cannot take a decision on without the investor’s consent. Some common “affirmative vote” items include entering into key agreements, the appointment of key personnel, the incurring of indebtedness and creation of security, and bringing about any changes to the business. How comprehensive this list of items is, also depends on the negotiations and the investment. For most startups, the investment is low and their independence in relation to the operations of the business is often instrumental to a transaction. Achieving a balance between such independence and the security of investment is a key point in the negotiations.

– provision of voting rights

In most cases, since the money is routed through a tax-friendly jurisdiction, investment is made in the form of compulsorily convertible instruments with a conversion pricing formula. This means that the instrument shall convert into equity at a later time (with a specific conversion event that should be clearly set out) under a formula that the parties agree on.

Until recently, it was assumed in the agreement that the instruments have already been converted into equity. The proportion of the investors’ (assumed) holding in the entire shareholding of the company would entitle the investor to exercise higher voting rights. After recent amendments to the company law however, only equity shareholders are entitled to vote. It is not clear whether convertible instrument holders can exercise their right to vote in the company. This may have substantially curtailed the voting rights of private equity investors. So while it may be safe(until challenged) to retain in the agreement, voting rights on the basis of an assumed conversion, there may even be a case to increase control at the board level until there is more clarity in the law.

Anti-dilution rights

Usually, in any investment transaction, it is stipulated that if the company carries out a share split, issue of bonus shares, consolidation of shares, combinations, recapitalisations or any similar event that may result in the dilution of the shareholding of the investor, including the issuance of any securities by the company, then the investors will be protected against any dilution of its shareholding in the company. For instance, it may be provided that the company shall take all necessary steps (including but not limited to the issuance of new shares) to ensure that the investors maintain their shareholding at the level prior to the occurrence of such event, without any consideration. However, in a case where there is additional funding required by the company and a party provides for such funding without a similar contribution by the other party, dilution of the non-contributing party cannot be avoided.

Transfer of securities and exit mechanism

At the time of investment, the terms of exit are also clearly set out in the transaction documentation. Sometimes, in a joint venture or a private equity investment, some restrictions are placed on a party’s right to transfer shareholding because their involvement in the company has some value that is not monetary alone. The common forms of restrictions placed on the transfer of securities are lock-in, right of first refusal or offer, tag along rights, and drag along rights. Further, unless there is a sale of the entire shareholding of the company to a competitor, a part of the shareholding is not permitted to be sold to a competitor.

Lock-in refers to a period following the closing of a transaction during which the investor will not be able to sell his shares to a third party. This restriction is essential to maintain a sense of continuity and settlement to the business. In private equity transactions, the investor is not the person who intends to run the business of the company. It invests in the capabilities of the promoters to run the business in a particular manner. In some cases, the involvement of the promoters is key to business and it is not ideal if the promoters divest their shareholding and cease to be a part of the business mid-way through the investment cycle. Therefore, a private equity investor will usually require an undertaking from the promoters that they will not exit from the business of the company, including through the selling of any shares.

Rights of first refusal or offer, and tag along and drag along rights are particularly important when either party wishes to sell its stake to a third party. Prior to the conclusion of such a sale, any of these restrictions in the shareholders’ agreement will require the selling party to offer its shareholding, first to the other shareholder party at a price at which it was contemplating the sale to a third party. In several cases, the selling party provides the other shareholder party an offer at which a third party is ready to purchase its shares. The shareholder party then gets a right to either accept or refuse such offer. Upon a refusal, the selling party is free to sell those shares to a third party but not at a price lower than the price that was offered or provided to the other shareholder party.

Sometimes, when the sale of shares to a third party is acceptable, the other shareholder party is also entitled to sell its stake along with the selling party to such third party. It is often the case that when the promoter sells its stake to a third party, the investor is no longer keen to be in the company or may not be keen to maintain such a high stake in the company any longer and may “tag” its shares along for sale to the third party. This is usually when the promoter retains some shareholding in the company.

The sale of an entire shareholding (known as a buyout) is usually governed by different terms and the provision of drag along rights are very common in such cases. Drag along rights refer to a right where a selling shareholder is entitled to drag the shares of the other shareholder and sell them to a third party at the same price and terms as that of its shares.

Exit rights

In mature private equity transactions, the investor is provided a basket of exit rights including taking the company to an initial public offer where preference is sometimes given to investors’ shares. There may also be provisions for the protection of investors’ money when things go wrong with the target company, a consideration that also influences the investor’s choice of instrument. In private equity transactions, usually, an internal rate of return or a pricing formula based on an acceptable manner of share valuation is determined at the very outset. At the time of exit, a put option is provided to the investor through which it can sell its shareholding to the promoter this pre-determined valuation. On some occasions, parties also have a call option where the other party’s shares may be purchased at a pre-determined value.

 

Angira Singhvi is a Partner with Khaitan & Khaitan and handles general corporate, joint ventures and private equity investments.

Categories
Corporate

Learning to draft a termination clause? Start with the events of termination.

Drafting_for_Business_Deepa_Mookerjee.jpgAfter our discussions on condition precedent clauses, restrictions placed on transfer of shares, and the meaning of ‘call’ and ‘put’ options, let us now turn our attention to the termination clause, one of the last clauses we usually see in a shareholders agreement but no less significant. It is in fact a vital clause that contains the mechanism by which an agreement can be terminated and the shareholders can exit the company.

A termination clause typically contains two main elements: (1) the events of termination; and (2) the consequences of such an event occurring. In this post, let us look closely at some common events of termination:

– Material default by one party: Take the case of A Limited and K Limited, two parties to a shareholder agreement. K Limited commits a material default and is unable to cure that default within a specified period of time. A Limited should then have the right to terminate the agreement.

While drafting this clause, clearly define the term ‘material default’. This ensures that the agreement cannot be terminated for minor ingressions and that only serious defaults will trigger the clause. Also, it reduces the scope for parties to dispute whether a ‘material default’ has in fact occurred.

Next, the defaulting party should always be provided a specified time period (known as the ‘cure period’) to rectify the situation, and only the non-defaulting party should be given the right to terminate the agreement. Specify that to invoke this clause, the non-defaulting party must always send a written notice to the defaulting party.

– Deadlock: A deadlock typically occurs when parties are unable to agree on a vital issue necessary for running the business of the company. While drafting, always define a ‘deadlock situation’. An example could be a company’s inability to hold a board meeting on three consecutive times for want of quorum.

For example, if K Limited would like the company to take a loan and A Limited disagrees and whenever K Limited tries to organise a board meeting to discuss this issue, the directors representing A Limited do not show up and so since no proper quorum is constituted for a board meeting, it can be considered a ‘deadlock situation’.

Often, the occurrence of a deadlock situation can act as a termination event. Parties may feel that it is impossible to run the business in such a situation and they would rather terminate the agreement. Discuss with your clients whether they would like a deadlock to be a termination event or whether they would prefer to resolve the situation through other means (such as arbitration).

Further, if a deadlock situation is considered an event of termination, always specify a mechanism by which one party can send a written notice to the other party specifying that this is a deadlock and it would like to terminate the agreement.

– Insolvency of the company – A Limited and K Limited are shareholders in One Limited, a corporation that is bankrupt and going through insolvency proceedings. Obviously the shareholders will then wish to terminate the agreement since it is not possible to continue running the business. While drafting this clause, it is best to specify that the agreement will terminate automatically on the occurrence of this event. This will eliminate procedural steps such as a notice being sent by one party to another.

– Cancellation of the license required to carry on business: The shareholders agreement concerns a banking company. A bank requires a license from the Reserve Bank of India to carry on business. If this license is cancelled, the bank ceases to function. Therefore, cancellation of the license (in a regulated entity) should be drafted as an automatic termination event.

– Change in law (resulting in the business of the company becoming illegal): Currently, the law permits private entities to operate airlines (subject to the necessary approvals). Assume that over a period of time, the government changes the law and nationalises all airlines. This means that private entities can no longer operate airlines. Consequently, any shareholders agreement to operate a particular airline must automatically terminate.

There is one important distinction among termination events that comes to mind when we study these clauses – some do not result in automatic termination and require parties to send written notices to each other (for instance, in case of material default or deadlock situations) and in other cases, there is an automatic termination (in case of a change in law, insolvency, or cancellation of a license). Always keep this distinction in mind while drafting. Ask your clients whether they are comfortable with certain events leading to automatic termination. After all, the thumb rule while drafting is always to reflect the interests of your client.

Finally, remember that a termination clause usually comes into play when the parties are disputing or have an issue they cannot resolve. In such a scenario, it is necessary that the termination clause is clearly drafted and sets out in a very precise manner, the events of termination and their consequences. If the clause is open-ended or vague, it is unlikely the parties will be able to follow the clause since they will end up arguing over the very intent of the clause itself. As a lawyer, your role is to try to amicably resolve the dispute or at the very least provide the most efficient way to exit from a situation that cannot be resolved!

With this, we come to the end of this post. In my next post I will write about the consequences of termination.

Deepa Mookerjee is part of the faculty on myLaw.net.

Categories
Corporate

All you need to know about drafting put and call option clauses

Drafting_for_Business_Deepa_Mookerjee.jpg“Call options” and “put options” are used frequently in shareholders agreements. As you know very well by now, a shareholders agreement specifies the rights and obligations of shareholders and sets out the manner in which the company will be governed. We have already seen some vital clauses used in these agreements such as condition precedent clauses and restrictions placed on the transfer of shares. Let us now look at “call” and “put” options.

Simply, a call option is a right but not an obligation to purchase shares at a specified price, on the happening of a specified event. If A and B are two investors in a joint venture company, A may have a call option over twenty-six per cent of the shares held by B, which he can exercise once the limit on foreign direct investment (“FDI”) is raised. This means that once the FDI cap is raised, A has a right to purchase twenty-six per cent of the shares held by B. If A exercises this right, B cannot decline to sell the shares to A.

A put option on the other hand, is a right but not an obligation to sell shares upon the occurrence of a specified event at a specified price. If A has a put option over twenty-six per cent of his own shares in the company that he can exercise once the company is insolvent, it means that if the company declares insolvency, A can sell his shares to B. Once A exercises his put option, B cannot decline to purchase A’s shares.

Junior lawyers should understand these mechanisms well because they can be used in a shareholders agreement in various scenarios. To think that call and put options are only useful in an FDI limit scenario or an insolvency situation (as discussed above), would be incorrect. Let us first go through some scenarios to understand how they may be useful.

Versatile options

Assume that there are two shareholders in a joint venture company – A and B. You are representing ‘A’. A comes to you with a simple question – what if B commits a material default of the provisions of the shareholders agreement and is unable to cure the defect or default? What are the options available to A?

PutAndCallOptions_ShareholderAgreementsYou can tell A that he can either ask for a mechanism by which he can sell his shares and exit the company (a put option) or a mechanism by which he can insist that B exits (a call option), when the material default occurs. The latter mechanism means he can continue in the company and ask B to exit. If you know these mechanisms well, you can give your client two options – either continue in the company and buy the other party’s shares (by exercising the call option) or sell his shares and exit the company (by exercising the put option).

Take another scenario. Suppose your client would like to continue as a shareholder in the company only if the company generates a certain amount of revenue after a specified period (say five years). If not, your client would like to exit. If you know what a put option is, you can simply suggest that your client include a put option over his own shares.

These two mechanisms can therefore be used throughout shareholders agreements to address different scenarios and the various needs of your client. There are some points that you should keep in mind while drafting them.

1. Be precise about whether your client has a right to sell shares or is under an obligation to purchase shares. Use words such as ‘right’ and ‘obligation’ wisely to ensure that the burden is being placed on the correct party.

2. Specify the amount or percentage of shares that are subject to the call or put option. At the time of enforcement, there should be no confusion on the amount of shares that can be sold or bought.

3. Remember, contractual arrangements can work in many permutations and combinations. For instance, if you are drafting a put option clause, it is not necessary that the shares always need to be sold to the other parties in the shareholder agreement. You can also have a right to sell your shares to a third party of your choice. Similarly, it is up to the parties to decide whether the option should apply to a part of the shares or all the shares that a party holds. As a lawyer, you should advise your client about the most appropriate form of the clause depending upon his or her intentions.

4. As always, the letter of the law plays an important role. For instance, the Reserve Bank of India has made it clear that a non-resident investor should not be guaranteed any assured exit price at the time of making an investment. The exit price must be a fair price calculated according to the prescribed guidelines and at the time of exit. Keep this in mind when you draft a put option for a foreign investor and always know the correct legal position before drafting.

5. Always flesh out the manner in which the clause will work. For instance, if your client has a call option on the shares held by the other party, you should specify the manner in which your client should send a notice to the other party indicating his or her intention to exercise the call option (known as a call option notice), the time period within which the other side must respond (the call option period), the price at which shares will be sold (the call option price), and the maximum time period within which the sale must take place. Specifying these details makes it simpler to execute the sale and implement the clause effectively.

Remember these basic points while drafting. Make sure that you are always clear about what a clause is intended to achieve. Take the time to understand the needs of your client and draft accordingly.

(Deepa Mookerjee is part of the faculty on myLaw.net)

Categories
Corporate

Three points to remember while drafting conditions precedent clauses

Drafting_for_Business_Deepa_Mookerjee.jpgA shareholders’ agreement is a contract that contains the rights and obligations of the shareholders in a company. It typically supplements either a share purchase agreement or a share subscription agreement. You can read more about them in my post on the documents that you will come across during M&A transactions.

Almost every shareholders agreement looks similar. You will see a title, a table of contents, a recital clause, an interpretation clause, and introductory clauses describing the transaction. These clauses have been discussed in detail in myLaw.net’s course on Advanced Commercial Contracts. In this post, I will explain the conditions precedent clause, which is typically seen in all shareholders agreements.

A condition precedent is usually a legal term describing a condition or event that must occur before a contract is considered in effect or any obligations are expected of either party. Here are a few examples.

A is purchasing 100% of the shares in a company whose main business is selling computers to the public. The company does not manufacture computers itself but sells the computers it receives from different distributors. From A’s perspective, the company’s relationship with its distributors is key because if the distributors don’t provide computers to the company, it will have nothing to sell. Many of the distributors’ contracts with the company require their prior approval before a 100% transfer of shares takes place. A would only want his obligation (to purchase shares and pay consideration for them) to be triggered once the company receives these approvals. The receipt of these approvals therefore, is a condition precedent that must be fulfilled by the company before the transaction is effective.

ConditionPrecedentClause

Take another example. B, a non-resident investor who has an investment in an IT company in Mumbai, wants to invest in an IT company in New Delhi. One of the terms of the transaction is that B must sell his interest in the Mumbai-based company before making the investment. So, the sale of those shares in the Mumbai-based company is a condition precedent that B must fulfill before he can invest in the Delhi-based company.

If these conditions are not fulfilled, there will be no deal. Common conditions precedent in M&A transactions include those in relation to obtaining approvals from the regulators, firing or hiring particular employees, ensuring that sufficient cash is available in the company, obtaining approvals from third parties, and ensuring that lease agreements are in place.

On whom is the obligation cast?

Let’s take a closer look at the examples above. You will see that the obligation to fulfill the condition precedent in the examples is cast on different parties. In the first example, the obligation to obtain approvals from distributors is cast on the investee company, that is, the company in which the investment is being made. In the second example, it is cast on the foreign investor. Conditions precedent can thus differ on the basis of the party on which the obligation to fulfill it, is cast. Some obligations can be cast on the investee company, some on the investor, and some jointly on the investee company and its shareholders.

For instance, C is a foreign investor who wants to invest in a company operating in a sector where the approval of the Reserve Bank of India is required for any foreign investment. Typically, the burden of obtaining this approval is cast jointly on all parties because each party’s cooperation is required for obtaining this approval.

While drafting a conditions precedent clause, you must take care to identify the party on whom the obligation to fulfill a particular condition is imposed. This is vital as each party is responsible to fulfill its own obligations in relation to the conditions precedent. While casting an obligation on the investee company, you should examine whether it is also useful to cast the obligation on its shareholders (or at least the majority shareholders) if they control the operations of the company.

The right to waive a condition precedent

Another point vital to this discussion is whether conditions precedent can be waived. Look at the first example. Assume that the investee company has only obtained approvals from fifty percent of its distributors. A, the investor, would really want the deal to go through and should be happy with approvals from these distributors if they are the major ones and would want to waive the condition that approvals must be obtained from all the distributors. Once A has waived the fulfillment of this condition, the deal can go through. The right to waive the fulfillment of a condition precedent is very important in all M&A transactions. Always include this right when you are drafting a condition precedent. The important point to keep in mind is that the person who has the right to waive the condition must be different from the person who is obliged to fulfill the condition.

In the first example, the right to waive the fulfillment of the condition in relation to obtaining consents from distributors must be with A and not the investee company. The investee company can never have the right to waive fulfillment of a condition that it is obliged to fulfill. Similarly, in the second example, the right to waive the condition in relation to withdrawal from the Mumbai-based IT company is on the investee company and not B, the investor.

Since these are all contractual rights, it is up to the parties to decide whether they would like to waive the conditions in part or in full. As a lawyer, your duty is to ask these questions from your client before you start drafting so that you can use the words that are appropriate to your client’s interests.

When should the conditions precedent be met?

Finally, always insert a date by which all the conditions precedent must be met. This is typically called the ‘long stop date’ and is important to ensure that there is no undue delay in the performance of the contract or the fulfillment of the conditions. Parties know that they must fulfill the conditions precedent by a specific date. While drafting this clause however, always include the following or similar words:

The Conditions Precedent must be satisfied by April 20, 2015 or any date as may be mutually agreed between the Parties.

The words in plain text above give the parties to a contract the right to mutually agree and extend the time for the fulfillment of the conditions. If, for example, regulatory approval — a condition precedent for a particular deal — takes longer than anticipated, the parties should have the right to extend the long stop date if they feel the need to do so. This is also important because if conditions precedent are not satisfied, the transaction is terminated, and parties must have the flexibility to prevent this.

As you start drafting conditions precedent, you will realise that there are many nuances to the manner in which you draft these conditions. For instance, you may use the words ‘use all reasonable efforts’ to dilute the obligation on a party. In such cases, that party only has to show that it has used all reasonable efforts to fulfill the condition and that will be enough (even if the condition has not been fulfilled).

Keep drafting and with practice, you will get better at drafting conditions precedent clauses.

(Deepa Mookerjee is part of the faculty on myLaw.net.)