|

Last November, I was working closely with one of our clients and their real estate lender to purchase a large property in the San Francisco Bay Area. I formed two California limited liability companies for the transaction. One LLC was the investment entity that was going to own the property, and the other was the management entity that was going to hold the sponsor interests in the deal. Both entities had to be properly and fully formed so that we could obtain good standing certificates from the Secretary of State and be in position to issue legal opinions for the lender. During the due diligence period, our client discovered something about the property that was not what had been represented to them by the seller of the property. As a result of this information, the purchase fell through.

Fortunately, despite all of the other costs expended on pursuing this property, the client had not yet paid the $800 franchise taxes for each of the two LLCs we formed. In California, if an LLC meets certain requirements it may cancel its Articles of Organization within 12 months of the filing by filing a Short Form Certificate of Cancellation with the Secretary of State, and avoid paying the first year’s franchise taxes. These requirements include:

– The California LLC has no debts or other liabilities (other than tax liability);
– The assets, if any, have been distributed to the persons entitled to them;
– The final tax return has been or will be filed with the Franchise Tax Board;
– The California LLC has not conducted any business since filing the Articles of Organization;
– A majority of managers or members, of if there are no managers or members, then the person who signed the Articles of Organization, voted to dissolve the LLC and

– If the LLC has received any payments from investors for LLC interests, those payments have been returned to the investors.

Source: Spidell’s California Taxletter, Vol 34.11, Nov. 1, 2012.

Because our client met all of these requirements, we were able to cancel the LLCs without paying the $1600 ($800 x 2) in California franchise taxes. If, on the other hand, the client had already paid the taxes, we would not have been entitled to a refund. With this in mind, sometimes when forming an LLC it may be better to wait until the last minute before the franchise taxes are due before paying them to make sure the business is going forward, as long as you either pay them before late fees would be imposed, or you are willing to incur late fees in the event your LLC does not qualify for the short form cancellation.

Continue reading ›

|

Although 2013 is well under way, taxpayers in San Jose may not be aware of changes to California laws that may affect them. Some of these changes include:

Proposition 30

With all the talk about federal income taxes going up this year, do not forget about the Proposition 30 retroactive increase in California taxes, effective as of January 1, 2012. For taxpayers with taxable income over $250,000, the California maximum rate is now 12.3%. On top of this, there is a 1% mental health surcharge for taxpayers with taxable income over $1,000,000. Together, these taxes give California the highest maximum state tax rate. If you fall under these tax brackets, you may not have paid enough taxes throughout the year, through either withholding or estimated tax payments, to avoid being under-withheld. However, there will be no penalty for the under-withholding so long as you pay the tax due in full by April 15, 2013. The ability to get out of penalties expires on April 15th. An extension to file doesn’t extend the payment deadline or the penalty exclusion. A late payment penalty of 5% plus 0.5% per month will be due if the full 2012 liability is not paid in full by April 15th.

Continue reading ›

|

The pace of merger and acquisition activity in Silicon Valley continues unabated, and the satisfaction of conditions to make sure both parties conclude a deal with all loose ends tied up becomes critical to a final closing. In my last blog, I discussed certain standard closing conditions contained in merger and acquisition documentation, particularly the requirement of stockholder approval and the use and impact of dissenters’ rights. In this blog, I will cover some of the other commonly used conditions in acquisitions of privately held companies.

Being a technology transfer lawyer, many of my clients’ deals focus on the need to retain key employees after the company is sold. For that reason, a key closing condition included in most acquisition agreements requires that certain employees with the acquired company agree to continue working with the company for a period of time after the closing. Often this obligation is structured by requiring the employees to sign employment agreements or consulting agreements with the buyer. Managing this process can be tricky, because employees will want to agree to terms they find preferable (e.g., receiving additional options and higher salary) and some key employees may be reticent to work with a buyer they do not know. In addition, negotiations occur between the key employee and an acquirer before a deal is closed, which is sometimes an awkward process.

Covenants Not to Compete

Continue reading ›

|

An investor bought an apartment building in San Jose and the broker wanted to send flowers for the occasion. A large bouquet was delivered to the buyer’s office with a note that read, “Rest in Peace.”

The buyer was irritated and called the florist to complain. After he had told the florist of the obvious mistake and that he was not pleased, the florist said: “Sir, I’m really sorry for the mistake, but what I’m more concerned about is . . . there is a funeral taking place today, and they have flowers with a note saying, “Congratulations on Your New Apartment!”This amusing joke is a good way of reminding us that both real estate and business deals continue to be closed in the Bay Area. As a banking, real estate and business lawyer representing parties to these transactions, I am very aware, and I expect most readers are as well, that financing continues to be a critical part of making a successful deal. During the robust period prior to 2008, one way parties garnered additional leverage in structuring real estate transactions was to utilize so-called mezzanine financing, in which the collateral securing a junior layer of debt consisted of the ownership interests in the borrower rather than the real estate. When the borrower was a limited liability company, this junior loan collateral could be secured through a pledge of the membership interests the owners held in the borrowing LLC.

The concept of using mezzanine debt to enhance leverage has not gone away. However, recent cases looking at transactions structured several years ago have curtailed the latitude of mezzanine lenders (“Mezz Lender”) and improved the position of the senior secured lender (“Mortgage Lender”) in the event problems arise after loan closings. If you are a Mortgage Lender holding real estate collateral, this may make it more attractive for you to enter into a transaction involving mezzanine financing. If you are a Mezz Lender or a borrower seeking to obtain and use mezzanine financing, obstacles now exist that were not there – or at least not believed to exist – before the markets collapsed in 2008.

Continue reading ›

|

Having practiced corporate law in Silicon Valley for 15 years, I must say that there is nothing more frustrating for my clients, who are mostly closely held businesses in the San Jose area, than spending months or years training an employee only to have her leave and go on to compete with the company that trained her. In particular, I represent several staffing and consulting companies and have had to listen to their complaints of how unfair this is from the employer’s perspective. Often, I have to tell these hard working, small business owners that there is almost nothing they can do (except pursue a claim against the employee for misappropriation of trade secrets). In 2008, the California Supreme Court decided Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP, making it clear that employee post-employment non-compete agreements are unenforceable in California except in certain very limited circumstances, including in connection with the sale of a good business involving goodwill.

Now, a new California Court of Appeals case, Fillpoint, LLC v. Maas (August 24, 2012) further enforces California’s attitude towards fostering open competition and disfavoring restrictions on employees. In the Fillpoint case, a major shareholder and key employee signed both a three year non-compete agreement related to the sale of his stock, and a one year post-employment non-compete in his new employment agreement. The Court paid particular attention to whether the stock purchase agreement and the employment agreement should be read together as one document. The employment agreement alone would violate California’s view of post-employment non-compete agreements as against public policy. However, in connection with the sale of the business, it could be enforceable. In this case, the shareholder/employee worked for the acquired company until the three year non-compete ran out, but then terminated his employment and went to work for the competition. The company claimed that the one year non-compete covenant in the employee’s employment agreement should restrict him from such competing employment. The employment agreement non-compete provision specifically prohibited him from making sales contacts or actual sales to any customer or potential customer of the company, working for or owning any business that competes with the company, and employing or soliciting for employment any of the company’s employees or consultants.

The court found that the two agreements should be considered integrated because the covenants were executed in connection with the sale or disposition of stock in the acquired company. In particular, they noted the integration clause in the documents, which stated that if there were any conflicts between the two documents, the stock purchase agreement would control. The court went on to consider whether the non-compete and non-solicitation covenants should be void and unenforceable, and found that they were because they were overly broad. In particular, the court noted the over-broad restriction against selling to potential customers of the company.

Continue reading ›

|

As a Silicon Valley corporate attorney, I work with a lot of Internet law and cyberspace law issues and am often asked by businesses to make sure their websites keep them free from trouble. Whether you are a large, multi-national corporation, a mid-size company, or a small business owner, chances are you run and operate a commercial website. One way to minimize the risk that comes from operating a commercial website is to create the conditions, sometimes called Terms of Use, that govern a visitor’s use of the site. A court decision in September, however, found that website terms could be invalid and therefore fail to provide any protection to website operators. Because the court is located in the federal district that includes California, it is a critical decision that affects California website operators.

The case, In re Zappos.com Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, 2012 WL 4466660 (D. Nev. Sept. 27, 2012) arises out of Zappos’ customer data security breach in January of this year. As is typical in a data breach situation, Zappos notified all persons whose personally identified information may have been compromised. When the inevitable lawsuit was filed, Zappos attempted to enforce an arbitration clause in the Terms of Use found on its website. A federal court in Nevada said “not so fast”.

Some background is helpful. Terms of Use are often created with little thought, and can often be changed at any time by the website operator. They typically are submitted as a “browse-wrap” agreement, which, unlike a “click-wrap” agreement, does not require the user to click on a box to confirm the user’s consent to the agreement. Browse-wrap agreements are usually referenced with an inconspicuous link at the bottom of a home page.

Continue reading ›

|

As 2012 is coming to an end, corporations and individuals alike are already thinking about taxes that they will need to pay at year-end. Every meeting I have with business owners lately somehow comes around to talking about taxes and how much I expect taxes to increase next year. The passage of Assembly Bill 1492 added yet another tax to the mix – the wood and lumber tax. This tax may affect homeowners, contractors and real estate developers.

We have all heard that ordinary federal income tax rates, currently maxing out at 35%, are scheduled to increase to 39.6%. Dividends could lose their special tax treatment and be taxed at this ordinary income tax rate as well. Federal long term capital gains rates will go from 15% back up to 20%. Payroll taxes may go back up from 4.2% to 6.2%. The AMT exemption amount may go back to 2010 levels. And high income earners will have an additional 3.8% Medicare tax. But on top of all that, starting January 1, 2013, those of us in California will also have to pay an additional 1% tax on the sales price of engineered wood and lumber products. (Assembly Bill 1492 (Ch. 12-289)).

Normally I would write this off as minor, but this year my husband and I are actually right in the middle of planning a huge fencing and deck project for our new house. (Did you know there was still residential land in the Silicon Valley that has not been fenced?) So, it was quite annoying to read about how this tax is going to be instituted on lumber, decking, railings and fencing as well as particle board, plywood and other wood building products, and even non-wood but wood-like products such as plastic lumber and decking. Even more so because it is already the middle of October and I’m pretty sure our project won’t be completed until early 2013. So, if I buy all the wood before the end of the year, I save 1%… but probably end up with more than I need and the inability to return it. But, if I wait until January to buy it just in time to install it, I am going to hate paying that extra 1%.

Continue reading ›

|

Whether it is a group lunch to welcome a new employee to our law firm, a birthday dinner for family, or Moms’ Night Out with friends, I often find myself enjoying Silicon Valley restaurants from San Jose to Palo Alto with a group of six or more. It is not uncommon to have the restaurant automatically add the gratuity, which is usually 18%, to our bill. This has always bothered me – not because I have a problem with paying the 18% (I often tip more than that), but because it is sometimes not obvious on the bill, and they still provide the blank line for you to add a tip, as if they are trying to trick people into double-tipping. Well, if you do not like the automatic 18% gratuity added to your bill, you will be happy to hear about a recent IRS ruling (Revenue Ruling 2012-18, June 25, 2012). This ruling clarifies the definition of tips verses service charges, each of which is treated differently for tax purposes. The result will likely be the end of automatic gratuities.

The IRS ruling states:

“The employer’s characterization of a payment as a “tip” is not determinative. For example, an employer may characterize a payment as a tip, when in fact the payment is a service charge. The criteria of Rev. Rul. 59-252, 1959-2 C.B. 215, should be applied to determine whether a payment made in the course of employment is a tip or non-tip wages under section 3121 of the Code. The revenue ruling provides that the absence of any of the following factors creates a doubt as to whether a payment is a tip and indicates that the payment may be a service charge: (1) the payment must be made free from compulsion; (2) the customer must have the unrestricted right to determine the amount; (3) the payment should not be the subject of negotiation or dictated by employer policy; and (4) generally, the customer has the right to determine who receives the payment. All of the surrounding facts and circumstances must be considered. For example, Rev. Rul. 59-252 holds that the payment of a fixed charge imposed by a banquet hall that is distributed to the employees who render services (e.g., waiter, busser, and bartender) is a service charge and not a tip. Thus, to the extent any portion of a service charge paid by a customer is distributed to an employee it is wages for FICA tax purposes.”

Continue reading ›

|

Whether an acquisition is in San Jose, Cupertino, San Francisco, or anywhere else in California or the United States, any corporate lawyer will tell you that a buyer will not close a deal unless certain conditions are satisfied. Fortunately, closing conditions contained in mergers and acquisitions documentation have become standardized. Exceptions, however, always arise based on the unique attributes of the transaction, and standard does not always mean simple.

Some merger or acquisition closing conditions are standard and rarely require negotiation. For example, one of the standard closing conditions is that there is no injunction, law, or court order that prevents the transaction from proceeding. Outside of an actual known threat to a transaction, these clauses are rarely negotiated in a private company acquisition transaction.

Another standard closing condition is that the requisite corporate approvals will be secured. Because the respective Board of Directors of the each company will have approved the acquisition agreement, this is usually a noncontroversial item.

Continue reading ›

|

As a business and real estate lawyer in San Jose, I have been paying special attention to the recovering real estate market. I have noticed an increase in residential and commercial properties transactions in San Jose, Sunnyvale, and Santa Clara. As much as the real estate market has improved, lenders are still cautious when it comes to providing financing, which has affected some of my business and real estate clients.

When the credit market is tight and financing is harder to obtain, sellers of real property may be more willing to provide seller financing to a buyer in order to sell a property. This is even more common when the seller and the buyer have some pre-existing relationship. When representing the seller, I will protect the seller by securing the loan with a deed of trust against the property so that if the buyer does not make the loan payments, the seller can take back the property. This sounds like a low risk proposition for the seller. However, taking back the property may be worse than it sounds. If the value has gone up since the seller bought it, which is usually the case, there is no way to reinstate the seller’s former base-year value for property tax assessment purposes. When the seller sells the property to the buyer, the property is reassessed. When the seller repossesses the property, the property will be reassessed again. Since there is no sales price to determine the value when the property is repossessed, an appraisal must be done. Seller, as the new owner, must report the fair market value of the property to the County. Penalties of up to $20,000 apply for failing to report a change in ownership. In my blog, “New Rules for Business Entities Change of Ownership Reporting for Real Property,” I talked about the need to report a change of ownership of an entity that owns real property as well.

So, if you are considering providing financing to a buyer on the sale of your property, you may want to think twice about whether you are comfortable with the remedy of repossessing the property with a new property tax value. It may be worthwhile waiting for a buyer who does not require you to assist with financing.

Continue reading ›