Materiality and Efforts Qualifiers – Some Distinctions, Some Without Differences

Guest post by Daniel E. Wolf and Eric L. Schiele, Kirkland & Ellis LLP

Much deserved attention has been paid to the first finding of a “material adverse change” (MAC) by a Delaware court in the recent Akorn decision. Of perhaps equal practical importance to dealmakers is the court’s guidance on a question that has long occupied draftspersons — whether or not there is, and the extent of, any legal difference between the many shades of qualifiers used in deal agreements on two key terms: materiality modifiers and efforts covenants. Building on earlier Delaware decisions, the court reached a clear split decision on this question.

In the case of efforts covenants, the court noted that qualifiers like “best efforts”, “reasonable best efforts”, “commercially reasonable efforts” and shades in between are used to define “how hard the parties have to try” to satisfy a commitment in the agreement such as obtaining regulatory approvals. VC Laster cited an ABA publication that purports to set a hierarchy among these clauses, with each prescribing a slightly different level of required efforts. However, he pointed to a string of recent cases, including the decision in Williams v. ETE, which view these standards — even when they appear in the same agreement — as largely interchangeable despite clearly seeming to suggest the parties intended a difference. In the Williams case, the court found that the “commercially reason- able efforts” and “reasonable best efforts” standards both “impose[d] obligations to take all reasonable steps to solve problems and consummate the transaction”. In another case (Alliance Data), the Delaware court said that even a flat “best efforts”, typically considered the most demanding standard, “is implicitly qualified by a reasonableness test”. A recent New York decision (Holland Loader) suggests that New York law will similarly imply a reasonableness standard regardless of which modifier is used.

By contrast, the Akorn decision confirms a sharp, and perhaps larger than expected, distinction between the two most common materiality qualifiers used to modify representations, covenants and closing conditions — “material adverse change/effect” and “in all material respects”. In the case of a MAC, VC Laster closely followed Delaware precedent (including Hexion and IBP) in holding that a buyer asserting a MAC “faces a heavy burden” and the relevant effect must “substantially threaten the overall earnings potential of the target in a durationally significant manner”. But in interpreting the similar-sounding “in all material respects” standard, the court articulated a much lower burden, stating that this qualifier merely “seeks to exclude small, de minimis, and nitpicky issues” and to limit the operation of the representation, covenant or condition to “issues that are significant in the context of the parties’ contract”.

The Akorn decision is a useful reminder that there sometimes is a gap between practitioners’ expectations about theoretical formulations and real-world outcomes when those expectations are judicially tested. While we do not necessarily expect the deal community suddenly to abandon negotiations around efforts formulations or to depart significantly from market practice for materiality qualifiers, parties can use an informed understanding of the case law to more effectively deploy negotiating leverage and goodwill where it matters most.


Daniel E. Wolf, Partner

www.kirkland.com/dwolf

Daniel Wolf’s practice focuses on mergers and acquisitions where he represents public and private companies, as well as private equity firms, in a variety of domestic and international transactions. His transactional experience spans the range of M&A activity including many significant cross-border and contested transactions. He also counsels public company clients on governance, finance, securities and other general corporate matters.

Eric L. Schiele, Partner

www.kirkland.com/eschiele

Eric Schiele is a corporate partner in the New York office of Kirkland & Ellis LLP. His practice primarily encompasses public and private mergers and acquisitions and board advisory work, including hedge fund activism defense.

Kirkland & Ellis LLP

www.kirkland.com

For more than 100 years, Kirkland has provided exceptional service to clients around the world in complex litigation, corporate and tax, intellectual property, restructuring and counseling matters. The groundwork has been established for another century of superior legal work and client service.

This communication is distributed with the understanding that the author, publisher and distributor of this communication are not rendering legal, accounting, or other professional advice or opinions on specific facts or matters and, accordingly, assume no liability whatsoever in connection with its use. Pursuant to applicable rules of professional conduct, this communication may constitute Attorney Advertising. © 2018 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP. All rights reserved.

Sellers Alleged Breach of Stock Purchase Agreement Did Not Excuse Buyer in M&A Transaction from Its Own Performance

Guest post by Philip D. Amoa, Associate – McCarter & English, LLP

Original Title: Delaware Law Updates: Sellers Alleged Breach of Stock Purchase Agreement Did Not Excuse Buyer in M&A Transaction from Its Own Performance; Right of Set-Off Did Not Apply to Unliquidated Claims

According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the word “unliquidated” is defined as “not calculated or established as a specific amount.” The Post Holdings case (Post Holdings, Inc., and Michael Foods of Delaware, Inc., v. NPE Seller Rep LLC, C.A. No. 2017-0772 AGB [Del. Ch. Oct. 29, 2018]) shed light on how a party’s right of set-off was construed to have limited applicability. The case also showed how a party may be excused from its obligations under a contract.

Continue reading

Silicon Valley Venture Capital Survey – Fourth Quarter 2017

 

By Cynthia Clarfield Hess, Mark A. Leahy and Khang Tran

View the full report.

Background
This report analyzes the terms of 190 venture financings closed in the fourth quarter of 2017 by companies headquartered in Silicon Valley.

Overview of Results
Valuation Results Remain Strong
Valuation results continued to be strong in Q4 2017, but the percentage price increases declined moderately compared to the prior quarter, following three consecutive quarters of increases.

Internet/Digital Media Scores Highest Valuation Results
The internet/digital media industry recorded the strongest valuation results in Q4 2017 compared to the other industries, with an average price increase of 179% and a median price increase of 51%, both up from the prior quarter.

Valuation Results Down for Series D Financings
Series D financings recorded the weakest valuation results in Q4 2017 compared to the other financing rounds, with the highest percentage of down rounds and the lowest average and median price increases of all the financing rounds.

 

FULL REPORT

 

View the original post by Fenwick & West LLP

Venture Capital Fundamentals: Three Basic Rules-Dilution, Dilution, Dilution

Written by: Joseph W. Bartlett, VC Experts Founder

Take a sample of 100 venture-backed companies successful enough to undertake an initial public offering. In a high percentage of the transactions, the prospectus discloses that the earliest stage investors (founders and angels) wind up with close to trivial equity percentages and thus, puny returns on their investment in the company. One would think that these investors are entitled to the lushest rewards because of the high degree of risk accompanying their early stage investments, cash and/or sweat. The problem, however, is dilution. Most early stage companies go through multiple rounds of private financing, and one or more of those rounds is often a “down round,” which entails a disappointing price per share and, therefore, significant dilution to those shareholders who are not in a position to play in the later rounds.

The problem of dilution is serious because it has a dampening impact on angels and others who are thinking of financing, joining or otherwise contributing to a start up. Estimates put the relationship of angel capital to early stageinvestments by professional VCs at five dollars of angel capital going into promising start ups for every one dollar of VC investment. But if angels are increasingly discouraged by the threat of dilution, particularly since the meltdown, we don’t have much of an industry; there is no one to start the engines. [1]

There are a variety of fixes for the dilution issue open to founders and angels.

  • Make sure you enjoy pre-emptive rights, the ability to participate in any and all future rounds of financing and to protect your percentage interest. Pre-emptive rights can be, of course, lost if you don’t have the money as founders and angels often do not to play in subsequent rounds.
  • Try to get a negative covenant; this gives you a veto over the subsequent round and particularly the pricing of the terms.

You don’t want to kill the goose of course, meaning veto a dilutive round and then once the Company fails for lack of cash; however, a veto right at least will you the opportunity to make sure the round is fairly prices; that the board casts a wide enough net so that the round is not an inside trade; meaning that the investors in control of the Company, go over in the corner and do a deal with themselves. Those rounds can be highly toxic to the existing shareholders (cram downs, as they are called). Finally, if you don’t have cash try to upgrade your percentage interest with derivative securitiesoptions and warrants (a warrant is another word for option, they are the same security, a call on the Company’s stock at a fixed price but options are if the call was labeled if an employee is the beneficiary is the holder and the warrants are for everyone else). If you are the founding entrepreneur therefore, make sure you are a participant in the employee option program. Often the founder will start off with a sufficient significant percentage of the Company’s equity that she doesn’t feel necessary to declare herself eligible for employee options. This is a major mistake. In fact, I am likely to suggest founder client consider a piece of financial engineering I claim to have invented; the issuance of warrants in favor of the founders and angels at significant step-ups from the current valuation, which I call ‘up-the-ladder warrants.’ To see how the structure works, consider the following example:

Let’s say the angels are investing $1,000,000 in 100,000 shares ($10 per share) at a pre-money valuation of $3 million, resulting in a post money valuation of $4 million ($1 million going into the Company). We suggest angels also obtain 100 percent warrant coverage, meaning they can acquire three warrants, totaling calls on another 100,000 shares of the Company’s stock; however not to scare off subsequent venture capitalists or, more importantly, cause the VCs to require the warrants be eliminated as a price for future investments. The exercise prices of the warrants will be based on pre-money valuations which are relatively heroic win/win valuations, if you like. For the sake of argument, the exercise prices could be set at $30, $40 and $50 a share (33,333 shares in each case).

Let’s use a hypothetical example to see how this regime could work. Since the angels have invested $1 million at a post-money valuation of $4 million, they therefore own 25 percent of the Company–100,000 shares out of a total of 400,000 outstanding. The three warrants, as stated, are each a call on 33,333 shares. Subsequent down rounds raise $2,000,000 and dilute the angels’ share of the Company’s equity from 25 percent to, say, 5 percent–their 100,000 shares now represent 5 percent of 2,000,000 shares (cost basis still $10 per share) and the down round investors own 1,900,000 shares at a cost of $1.05 per share. Assume only one down round. Finally, assume the Company climbs out of the cellar and is sold for $100 million in cash, or $50 per share.

Absent ‘up-the-ladder warrants,’ the proceeds to the angels would be $5 million–not a bad return (5x) on their investment but, nonetheless, arguably inconsistent with the fact that the angels took the earliest risk. The ‘up-the-ladder warrants‘ add to the angels’ ultimate outcome (and we assume cashless exercise or an SAR technique, and ignore the effect of taxes) as follows: 33,333 warrants at $20/share are in the money by $666,660 and 33,333 warrants at $10 a share are in the money by $333,330. While the number of shares to be sold rises to 2,066,666, let’s say, for sake of simplicity, the buy-out price per share remains at $50, meaning the angels get another $999,999–call it $1 million. The angels’ total gross returns have increased 20 percent while the VCs’ returns have stayed at $95,000,000. Even if the $1,000,000 to the angels comes out of the VC’s share, that’s trivial slippage … a gross payback of 47.5 times their investment, vs. 47 times. If the company sells for just $30 a share, the angels get nothing and the VCs still make out.


 

Term Sheets: Important Negotiating Issues

It is customary to begin the negotiation of a venture investment with the circulation of a document known as a term sheet, a summary of the terms the proposer (the issuer, the investor, or an intermediary) is prepared to accept. The term sheet is analogous to a letter of intent, a nonbinding outline of the principal points which the Stock Purchase Agreement and related agreements will cover in detail. The advantage of the abbreviated term sheet format is, first, that it expedites the process. Experienced counsel immediately know generally what is meant when the term sheet specifies “one demand registration at the issuer‘s expense, unlimited piggybacks at the issuer‘s expense, weighted average antidilution,” it saves time not to have to spell out the long-form edition of those references.

Important Negotiating Issues

Entrepreneurs who are in the process of effecting a venture capital financing for their start-up or emerging companies will negotiate with one or more venture capital firms on a number of fundamental and important issues. These issues are generally initially set forth in a “Term Sheet” which will serve as the basic framework for the investment. It is important that the company anticipate these issues and that the Term Sheet reflect the parties’ understanding with respect to them.

The following are some of the more important issues that arise:

  • The Valuation of the Company. While valuation is often viewed as the most important issue by the company, it needs to be considered in light of other issues, including vesting of founder shares, follow-on investment capabilities by the venture investors, and terms of the security issued to the investors. Significant financial and legal due diligence will occur and entrepreneurs should ensure that their companies’ financial projections are reasonable and that important assumptions are explained. Venture investors will consider stock options and stock needed to be issued to future employees in determining a value per share. This is often referred to as determining valuation on a “fully diluted” basis.
  • The Amount and Timing of the Investment. Venture investors in early stage companies often wish to stage their investment, with an obligation to make installment contributions only if certain pre-designated milestones are met.
  • The Form of the Investment by the Venture Investors. Venture investors often prefer to invest in convertible preferred stock, giving them a preference over common shareholders in dividends and upon liquidation of the company, but with the upside potential of being able to convert into the common stock of the company. There are strong tax considerations in favor of employee-shareholders for use of convertible preferred stock, allowing the employees to obtain options in the company at a much reduced price to that paid by the venture investors (a pricing of employee stock options at 1/10th of the price for preferred stock is common among Silicon Valley companies). Often times, venture investors will seek to establish interim opportunities to realize a return on this investment such as by incorporating a current dividend yield or redemption feature in the security. [Redemption rights allow Investors to force the Company to redeem their shares at cost (and sometimes investors may also request a small guaranteed rate of return, in the form of a dividend). In practice, redemptionrights are not often used; however, they do provide a form of exit and some possible leverage over the Company. While it is possible that the right to receive dividends on redemption could give rise to a Code Section 305 “deemed dividend” problem, many tax practitioners take the view that if the liquidation preference provisions in the Charter are drafted to provide that, on conversion, the holder receives the greater of its liquidation preference or its as-converted amount (as provided in the Model Certificate of Incorporation), then there is no Section 305 issue.]
  • The Number of Directors the Venture Investors Can Elect. The venture investors will often want the right to appoint a designated number of directors to the company’s Board. This will be important to the venture investors for at least two reasons: (1) they will be better able to monitor their investment and have a say in running of the business and (2) this will be helpful for characterization of venture capital fund investors as “venture capital operating companies” for purposes of the ERISA plan asset regulations. Companies often resist giving venture investors control of, or a blocking position on, a company’s Board. A frequent compromise is to allow outside directors, acceptable to the company and venture investors, to hold the balance of power. Occasionally, Board visitation rights in lieu of a Board seat is granted.
  • Vesting of the Founders’ Stock. Venture investors will often insist that all or a portion of the stock owned or to be owned by the founders and key employees vest (i.e., become “earned”) only in stages after continued employment with the company. The amount deemed already vested and the period over which the remaining shares will vest is often one of the most sensitive and difficult negotiating issues. Vesting of founder stock is less of an issue in later stage companies. Another issue with the founders can arise if the VC insist that the founders lock-up the issuer‘s representatives and warranties. Founders’ representations are controversial and may elicit significant resistance as they are found in a minority of venture deals. They are more likely to appear if Founders are receiving liquidity from the transaction, or if there is heightened concern over intellectual property (e.g., the Company is a spin-out from an academic institution or the Founder was formerly with another company whose business could be deemed competitive with the Company), or in international deals. [Founders’ representations are even less common in subsequent rounds, where risk is viewed as significantly diminished and fairly shared by the investors, rather than being disproportionately borne by the Founders.
  • Additional Management Members. The investors will occasionally insist that additional or substitute management employees be hired following their investment. A crucial issue in this regard will be the extent to which the stock or options issued to the additional management will dilute the holdings of the founders and the investors.
  • The Protection of Conversion Rights of the Investors from Future Company Stock Issuances. The venture investors will insist on at least a weighted average anti-dilution protection, such that if the company were to issue stock in the future based on a valuation of the company less than the valuation represented by their investment, the venture investors’ conversion price would be lowered. The company will want to avoid the more severe “ratchet” anti-dilution clause and to specifically exempt from the anti-dilution protection shares or options that are issued to officers and key employees. It is also sometimes desirable from the company’s perspective to modify the anti-dilution protection by providing that only those investors who invest in a subsequent dilutive round of financing can take advantage of an adjustment downward of their conversion price, a so-called “pay to play” provision. If the formula states that if the number of shares in the formula is “broadest” based, this helps the common shareholder. [If the punishment for failure to participate is losing some but not all rights of the Preferred (e.g., anything other than a forced conversion to common), the Certificate of Incorporation will need to have so-called “blank check preferred” provisions at least to the extent necessary to enable the Board to issue a “shadow” class of preferred with diminished rights in the event an investor fails to participate. Because these provisions flow through the charter, an alternative Model Certificate of Incorporation with “pay-to-play lite” provisions (e.g., shadow Preferred) has been posted. As a drafting matter, it is far easier to simply have (some or all of) the preferred convert to common.]
  • Pre-emptive Rights of the Investors to Purchase any Future Stock Issuances on a Priority Basis. The company will want this pre-emptive right to terminate on a public offering and will want the right to exclude employee stock issuances and issuances in connection with acquisitions, employee stock issues, and securities issuances to lenders and equipment lessors.
  • Employment Agreements With Key Founders. Management should anticipate that venture investors will typically not want employment agreements. If they are negotiated, the key issues often are: (1) compensation and benefits; (2) duties of the employee and under what circumstances those duties can be changed; (3) the circumstances under which the employee can be fired; (4) severance payments on termination; (5) the rights of the company to repurchase stock of the terminated employee and at what price; (6) term of employment; and (7) restrictions on post-employment activities and competition.
  • The Proprietary Rights of the Company. If the company has a key product, the investors will want some comfort as to the ownership by the company of the proprietary rights to the product and the company’s ability to protect those rights. Furthermore, the investors will want some comfort that any employees who have left other companies are not bringing confidential or proprietary information of their former employer to the new company. If the product of the company was invented by a particular individual, appropriate assignments to the company will often be required. Investors may require that all employees sign a standard form Confidentiality and Inventions Assignment Agreement.
  • Founders Non-Competes. The investors want to make sure the founders and key employees sign non-competes.
  • Exit Strategy for the Investors. The venture investors will be interested in how they will be able to realize on the value of their investment. In this regard, they will insist on registration rights (both demand and piggyback); rights to participate in any sale of stock by the founders (co-sale rights); and possibly a right to force the company to redeem their stock under certain conditions. The company will need to consider and negotiate these rights to assure that they will not adversely affect any future rounds of financing.
  • Lock-Up Rights. Increasingly, venture investors are insisting on a lock-up period at the term sheet stage where the investors have a period of time (usually 30-60 days) where they have the exclusive right, but not the obligation, to make the investment. The lock-up period allows the investors to complete due diligence without fear that other investors will pre-empt their opportunity to invest in the company. The company will be naturally reluctant to agree to such an exclusivity period, as it will hamper its ability to get needed financing if the parties cannot reach agreement on a definitive deal.

Form of Term Sheet.

They are intended to set forth the basic terms of a venture investor’s prospective investment in the company. There are varying philosophies on the use and extent of Term Sheets. One approach is to have an abbreviated short form Term Sheet where only the most important points in the deal are covered. In that way, it is argued, the principals can focus on the major issues and not be hampered by argument over side points. Another approach to Term Sheets is the long form all-encompassing approach, where virtually all issues that need to be negotiated are raised so that the drafting and negotiating of the definitive documents can be quick and easy. The drawback of the short form approach is that it will leave many issues to be resolved at the definitive document stage and, if they are not resolved, the parties will have spent extra time and legal expense that could have been avoided if the long form approach had been taken. The advantage of the short form approach is that it will generally be easier and faster to reach a “handshake” deal. The disadvantage of the long form approach from the venture investors’ perspective is that it may tend to scare away unsophisticated companies.

Lagniappe Terms:

The Charter: (Certificate of Incorporation) is a public document, filed with the Secretary of State of the state in which the company is incorporated, that establishes all of the rights, preferences, privileges and restrictions of the Preferred Stock.

Accrued and unpaid dividends are payable on conversion as well as upon a liquidation event in some cases. Most typically, however, dividends are not paid if the preferred is converted.

PIK” (payment-in-kind) dividends: another alternative to give the Company the option to pay accrued and unpaid dividends in cash or in common shares valued at fair market value.

“Opt Out”: For corporations incorporated in California, one cannot “opt out” of the statutory requirement of a separate class vote by Common Stockholders to authorize shares of Common Stock. The purpose of this provision is to “opt out” of DGL 242(b)(2).

Preferred Stock: Note that as a matter of background law, Section 242(b)(2) of the Delaware General CorporationLaw provides that if any proposed charter amendment would adversely alter the rights, preferences and powers of one series of Preferred Stock, but not similarly adversely alter the entire class of all Preferred Stock, then the holders of that series are entitled to a separate series vote on the amendment.

The per share test: ensures that the investor achieves a significant return on investment before the Company can go public. Also consider allowing a non-QPO to become a QPO if an adjustment is made to the Conversion Price for the benefit of the investor, so that the investor does not have the power to block a public offering.

Blank Check Preferred: If the punishment for failure to participate is losing some but not all rights of the Preferred (e.g., anything other than a forced conversion to common), the Certificate of Incorporation will need to have so-called “blank check preferred” provisions at least to the extent necessary to enable the Board to issue a “shadow” class of preferred with diminished rights in the event an investor fails to participate. Because these provisions flow through the charter, an alternative Model Certificate of Incorporation with “pay-to-play lite” provisions (e.g., shadow Preferred) has been posted. As a drafting matter, it is far easier to simply have (some or all of) the preferred convert to common.

Redemption rights: allow Investors to force the Company to redeem their shares at cost (and sometimes investors may also request a small guaranteed rate of return, in the form of a dividend). In practice, redemption rights are not often used; however, they do provide a form of exit and some possible leverage over the Company. While it is possible that the right to receive dividends on redemption could give rise to a Code Section 305 “deemed dividend” problem, many tax practitioners take the view that if the liquidation preference provisions in the Charter are drafted to provide that, on conversion, the holder receives the greater of its liquidation preference or its as-converted amount (as provided in the Model Certificate of Incorporation), then there is no Section 305 issue.

Founders’ representations are controversial and may elicit significant resistance as they are found in a minority of venture deals. They are more likely to appear if Founders are receiving liquidity from the transaction, or if there is heightened concern over intellectual property (e.g., the Company is a spin-out from an academic institution or the Founder was formerly with another company whose business could be deemed competitive with the Company), or in international deals. Founders’ representations are even less common in subsequent rounds, where risk is viewed as significantly diminished and fairly shared by the investors, rather than being disproportionately borne by the Founders. Note that Founders/management sometimes also seek limited registration rights.

Registration: The Company will want the percentage to be high enough so that a significant portion of the investor base is behind the demand. Companies will typically resist allowing a single investor to cause a registration. Experienced investors will want to ensure that less experienced investors do not have the right to cause a demand registration. In some cases, different series of Preferred Stock may request the right for that series to initiate a certain number of demand registrations. Companies will typically resist this due to the cost and diversion of management resources when multiple constituencies have this right.

Break Up Fee: It is unusual to provide for such “break-up” fees in connection with a venture capital financing, but might be something to consider where there is a substantial possibility the Company may be sold prior to consummation of the financing (e.g., a later stage deal).

Q1 2018 Prime Unicorn Index Reconstitution Report

Post by Lagniappe Labs LLC

The Prime Unicorn Index added nine constituents and dropped one in its quarterly reconstitution, for a total of 93 index components as of Q1 2018.

The additions to the Index are: Urban Compass, AvidXchange, Discord, Bolt Threads, Proterra, WellTok, Flatiron Health, Health Catalyst, and Pindrop Security.

The deletion from the Index is: Forescout Technologies

As more high-performing companies defer or eliminate plans to go public, the demand for information and investment exposure to this growing portion of the American economy has soared. The Q1 2018 Prime Unicorn Index Reconstitution Report provides more information on the new nine constituents and how they compare against the Index.

Screenshot 2018-01-29 14.05.08