Cardinal Ximinez: “Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise, surprise and fear, fear and surprise. Our *two* weapons are fear and surprise, and ruthless efficiency. Our *three* weapons are fear and surprise and ruthless efficiency and an almost fanatical dedication to the pope.” – Monty Python “The Spanish Inquisition”
I have seen my fair share of situations where change in control provisions in agreements resulted in unintended consequences. Until recently, I thought their sole purpose was as the name implies and as Curly said in “City Slickers,” “One thing; just one thing.” But maybe as the Cardinal suggests, there is more than one thing. Let’s look a bit more closely.
Every smart business owner knows his most valuable assets walk out the door at the end of each day. Most owners like to retain key employees and enter into employment agreements that among other things, provide for incentives (many of which vest over a period of time) that are protected, should the owner or owners no longer be around. This standard solution is known in plain English as a “change in control” provision. What this normally provides for is the acceleration of any vesting or even liquidity provisions of any incentive provisions for the key employee in the event the current owner no longer has more than 50% (usually) of voting control in the company. Everything seems fair so far; what is the problem?
In case one, I was asked to consult with a company that had a key employee that was promised an incentive payment in the event of a change in control. That provision was triggered when the Company was sold to a “strategic” but the Company took the position that they had accepted a lower sales price in return for the key employee being offered a position with the acquirer, thus they did not owe the incentive. While both sides believed their case had merit, the ambiguity created years of turmoil until we helped to resolve it.
In the second situation, an acquirer had issued an LOI for the purchase of one of my clients. During due diligence, they realized that the resulting change of control provisions would substantially “enrich the lives” of all the key management members, and they were sufficiently concerned with their motivation after the deal that they almost walked away. Fortunately, a solution was crafted which all found acceptable.
So just when I thought the key provision in an employment agreement with an incentive was a change in control, I have come to realize that it should be accompanied by a well-defined “continued employment” provision so both the team member and the company do not suffer unintended consequences when there is a change in control. Negotiating them at the start when both sides are not under the pressure of an impending transaction is also very helpful. I am starting to see these provisions in some recent transactions and strongly encourage their use. As the Cardinal said, the two key provisions are…