.: Minority Shareholder Squeeze Out
By:Dave Kauppi
For those that have been a victim of a minority shareholder squeeze out, the experience can be a nightmare. It usually involves the majority shareholder first terminating the employment of a shareholder of less than 50% of the privately held company's stock. The benefit to the minority shareholders in owning the stock is primarily their employment and the anticipation of a fair purchase price when the entire company is sold.
Dividends are seldom paid to shareholders, and if they are, they are minimal. After the minority shareholder is terminated, he receives an offer to purchase his shares from the majority holder or the corporation for what he feels is way below market price. When he objects, he is referred to the shareholder agreement that he signed years ago that gives the Corporation or other shareholders the right of first refusal to purchase his shares at valuations that are not even close to the fair value of his shares.
The first reaction is to sue. Let me tell you it is usually a waste of time and almost always a waste of money. After all, you signed the shareholder agreement that states very clearly:
Right of First Refusal: The Corporation Shall have the power, at its option to purchase any and all of its shares owned and held by any shareholder who should desire to sell - the shareholders shall not assign, transfer, encumber, or in any manner dispose of any or all of the shares of the corporation that may now or hereafter be held or owned by them, and no such shares shall be transferable unless and until such shares have first been offered to the corporation.
It gets worse folks:
In the event the Corporation exercises its right of first refusal under the above clauses, the purchase price shall be payable in cash or bank check, and shall be the book value of the shares, exclusive of goodwill, as of the first notice, as determined according to generally accepted accounting principles and shall be binding upon the parties.
According to the Coolidge Study Fixing Value of Minority Interest in a Business Actual Sales Suggest Discounts as high as 70 percent from what would be considered the fair value of the entire company multiplied by the minority shareholder's percentage ownership.
A number of years of experience has demonstrated that it is extremely difficult to find any market for minority interests
-despite efforts to do so - On the relatively rare occasions when an offer is made to buy a minority interest, it is almost always for an amount far less than the fiduciary and beneficiary expect to get.
Why does this happen? The majority shareholders whose attorneys drew up the shareholder's agreement certainly balance the scales way in favor of their clients. Secondly, IRS Revenue Ruling 59-60 allows steep discounts when valuing minority interests in privately held companies. The lack of marketability discount can be as high as 40%. A second discount for lack of control for up to 40% can be applied on top of that.
Armed with this knowledge and backed by a favorable shareholder agreement, the majority shareholder is under no compunction to offer anything close to a fair price for the squeezed out minority holder. Below is the sad news that results from this environment as reported by the Coolidge Study of actual minority shareholder buy-outs:
Average sale price was 36% below accounting book value
Only 20% were at discounts of less than 20%
53% sold at discounts ranging from 22% - 48%
23% sold at discounts ranging from 54% - 78%
Note: The metric used was accounting book value not fair market value. For most going concerns, net book value is not even close to true market value. Net book value might apply if the company was losing money or making so little money, that the break up value of selling the assets exceeded a valuation based on the earnings capacity of the business. In a company we recently looked at, for example, the net book value was about $3 million. The fair value, however, based on comparables and a discounted cash flow valuation was closer to $10 million. So the best way I can describe these buyout offers is punishing.
Remember the first reaction is the lawsuit. Unless the majority owner does something stupidly oppressive, there are no grounds that can force him to buy your shares at anything other than what is stated in the shareholder agreement. He really does not have to buy your shares at all. He can simply wait you out and pay no dividends, and pass the business down to the next generation. Your family could conceivably get no value for the ownership for a hundred years. Remember, most likely your benefit from being a minority shareholder was that you were employed by the company.
Many squeezed out shareholders try the route of wrongful termination lawsuits. Again, great for the lawyers, not such a sound risk reward decision. Typically they will spend $100,000 in legal fees to recover one year's wages of $150,000. Other than the satisfaction of sticking it to the majority holder, it is pretty much useless. If you think this wrongful termination lawsuit can somehow be used to leverage the majority shareholder into paying fair value for your stock, you are deluding yourself. Unfortunately, the legal counsel you have hired will support your delusion.
A client was attempting this ill-fated approach and had been at it for over a year and spent over $100K on a wrongful termination lawsuit. Our advice went something like this, Dan, you are focusing on the wrong thing. You are spending all your time and money thinking your wrongful termination lawsuit can somehow benefit your cause to improving the buyout offer. If you win, your one year in salary recovery will just about break you even with your legal expenses. You have been offered $500 K to purchase your 47% interest in a business with an enterprise value of $9 million. Let us help you focus your efforts on chasing the correct pot of gold.
I know what you are thinking. I already know this. I have lived this. Why have I wasted my time reading this article to have you tell me what I already am painfully aware of? OK, maybe I can shine a ray of sunshine. We recommend an investment banking approach to encourage the majority shareholders to allow the minority shareholders to unlock more value for their shares. It involves a great measure of deal making fineness to help the majority shareholder recognize what's in it for him. If that fails, the majority shareholder has to make an error and then you can attempt a minority oppression lawsuit.
Article keywords: shareholder dispute, minority shareholder squeeze out, minority discount, shareholder oppression, M&A
Article Source: http://www.articles32.com
Dave Kauppi is a Merger and Acquisition Advisor and President of MidMarket Capital, representing owners in the sale of privately held businesses. We provide Wall Street style investment banking services to lower mid market companies at a size appropriate fee structure. Contact Dave at (630) 325-0123 or davekauppi@midmarkcap.com
.: New Legal Articles
1). Who Can Make An Accessibility Claim Under the ADA
Who Can Make a claim under the ADA for lack of accessibility to a public business or facility.
2). A Loophole in Landlord Tenant Law in California
Basic housing standards required for residential property and a the loop hole that allows landlords to legally harass tenants.
3). Asbestos Settlements Help Victims Breathe Easier
The term asbestos settlement is used to describe all legal settlements reached where asbestos exposure has caused serious medical problems for an individual who worked in an environment now known to cause several types of 100% fatal cancers.
4). Choosing the Right Mesothelioma Lawyer Means Everything
Recently, have you or a loved one been diagnosed with Mesothelioma?
5). Mesothelioma And Getting Legal Representation
Filing a Mesothelioma lawsuit can be a long and arduous road.
6). Mesothelioma Lawyers In High Demand
Mesothelioma is a rare, deadly cancer that strikes nearly 3,000 people in the United States every year.
7). What Constitutes Nursing Home Neglect - Help for Nursing Home Abuse Victims
In America today, we have placed nearly 2 million elderly family members under the direct care of a nursing home.
.: Top Legal Articles
1). What does it take to be a Lawyer?
When you see all these handsome Lawyers in TV series like LA Law, sitting in their fancy offices, driving these flashy cars, have you ever realized what they have been through in terms of time, years of education, money, Certifications etc’.
Let me Describe to you the Lawyers course of training. Formal educational requirements for lawyers include a 4-year college degree, 3 years in law school, and the passing of a written bar examination.
2). Crime Never Pays
Crime is a bad thing. And the previous sentence was an understatement, and an inaccurate description of the concept of Crime.
3). The New Bankruptcy “Means Test” Explained in Plain English
With the new bankruptcy law in effect as of October 17, 2005, there is a lot of confusion regarding the new "means test" requirement. The means test will be used by the courts to determine eligibility for Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 bankruptcy. The purpose of this article is to explain in plain language how the means test works, so that consumers can get a better idea of how they will be affected under the new rules.
4). Estate Planning - No Contest Clause in your Will
Copyright 2006 Ronald Hudkins
There is value in the story of an older client who had seen a very interesting clause employed in a will. There was a great deal of money at stake and the many family members had little reason to love each other, because they had never met and never knew of each other’s existence. It was expected that the will would be heavily contested on several different fronts in every conceivable way.
5). DUI Law Punishments
It’s no surprise that current DUI Law mandates that DUI punishments cause problems in your personal life in the short term. With punishments such as t
6). Employment Law - Unfair Dismissal - Constructive Dismissal
The case of Thornley v Land Securities Trillium Ltd [2005] concerned a claim for unfair and constructive dismissal by an employee who alleged that her employer imposed a new job description on her and she contended that her contract of employment was fundamentally breached by such changes to her duties imposed by her employer. The Tribunal upheld this claim.
7). Employment Law - Excessive Working Hours - Breach of Duty of Care
n the case of Mark Hone v Six Continents Retail Limited (2005), a pub landlord having collapsed due to overwork successfully sued his former employers in the County Court for breach of duty of care.
Mr Hone, the claimant, started working for Bass (now Six Continents) as a pub manager in 1995 and in 1998 was awarded "Pub Manager of the Year". However, in 1999 he started working at The Old Moat House where he found himself working 13 hour days.