Shotgun clause

Last updated

A shotgun clause (or Texas Shootout Clause [1] ) is a term of art, rather than a legal term. It is a specific type of exit provision that may be included in a shareholders' agreement, and may often be referred to as a buy-sell agreement. The shotgun clause allows a shareholder to offer a specific price per share for the other shareholder(s)' shares; the other shareholder(s) must then either accept the offer or buy the offering shareholder's shares at that price per share.

Contents

Discussion

Typically, an exit clause is triggered in situations where a business partnership has severely deteriorated, and so the situation is often likened to a divorce. In the same way that drawn-out battles between a splitting couple can often[ when? ] leave children with emotional damage[ according to whom? ], so too can a business be damaged by drawn-out fighting between its owners. For this reason, experts[ who? ] in the area emphasize the importance of including an exit clause in a firm's shareholders' agreement in order to minimize the negative impact of a business-divorce. As with a prenuptial agreement, it is important[ why? ] to set out an exit clause early on in a business relationship when interests are still aligned and partners still like each other.

Shotgun clauses protect the interests of both or all parties regardless of their stake in the company. If one party decides to trigger the clause, it is in their best interest to make a well considered, fair offer - for if they make a low offer, their partner(s) may raise the resources to turn the offer against them, a counteroffer they would be bound to accept.[ citation needed ]

Process

The shareholder triggering the clause offers to buy the shares of the others at a specific price per share. The other shareholder(s) must then either accept the offer and sell their shares, or buy the triggering shareholders' shares at that same price. Alternatively, the clause can be structured so that the triggering shareholder offers to sell his shares at a specific price per share, and the other shareholders can then accept the offer or sell their shares to the triggering shareholder at the set price.

The timeline is generally very short, although there are no hard and fast rules. It would not be unusual to have 20 to 40 days to elect to sell or buy, and another 20 to 40 days to close. If the recipient of the offer does not respond in the allotted period of time, the offer is assumed to have been accepted.

Rationale

The clause is most applicable when both partners want to run the company, but not together, and an amicable buy-out cannot be reached. It serves as a sort of last resort method for solving these disputes, while also helping to ensure that a fair price is offered. When triggering a shotgun clause, the offering partner does not know whether they will end up buying or selling their shares, so the individual must – in theory – pick a price that they would find acceptable in either outcome, thus preventing large over- or under-valuations of the firm.

Financing

Shotgun clauses tend to favour people with cash readily available. Once a shotgun clause has been triggered, shareholders can often face difficulties obtaining traditional financing in order to buy the other shareholders' shares, due largely to the very short timeline of the transaction. Financing commitments from traditional banks typically take too long to obtain, and lenders often avoid situations where management conflicts are likely to disrupt the business. This means that owners facing a triggered shotgun clause are often forced to rely on their own resources if they wish to fend off being bought out. However, there are some private equity and venture capital firms that specialize in providing capital for shotgun situations.

Economics

In academic circles it has been argued that, under certain circumstances, these clauses are not economically efficient in that the partner who values the company most is not always the one that ends up buying the company. De Frutos and Kittsteiner suggest in their paper that in order to ensure an efficient outcome, there should not be a contractual obligation for the party who triggers the clause to name the price. Instead, they advocate including in the termination agreement a clause stating that the parties will negotiate for the right to be the person who chooses whether to buy or sell at the price specified by the other partner. They suggest that this negotiation take the form of an ascending auction where the shareholders bid for the right not to set the price per share. Each partner raises his/her bid continuously, but either partner can drop out of the auction at any time. The party that drops out becomes the one who must propose the price per share, but that person receives a payment from the other partner equal to the bid at which the auction ended.

Related Research Articles

Business Organization undertaking commercial, industrial, or professional activity

Business is the activity of making one's living or making money by producing or buying and selling products. Simply put, it is "any activity or enterprise entered into for profit."

A shareholder rights plan, colloquially known as a "poison pill", is a type of defensive tactic used by a corporation's board of directors against a takeover.

In business, a takeover is the purchase of one company by another. In the UK, the term refers to the acquisition of a public company whose shares are listed on a stock exchange, in contrast to the acquisition of a private company.

An initial public offering (IPO) or stock launch is a public offering in which shares of a company are sold to institutional investors and usually also retail (individual) investors. An IPO is typically underwritten by one or more investment banks, who also arrange for the shares to be listed on one or more stock exchanges. Through this process, colloquially known as floating, or going public, a privately held company is transformed into a public company. Initial public offerings can be used to raise new equity capital for companies, to monetize the investments of private shareholders such as company founders or private equity investors, and to enable easy trading of existing holdings or future capital raising by becoming publicly traded.

A closed-end fund (CEF) or closed-ended fund is a collective investment model based on issuing a fixed number of shares which are not redeemable from the fund. Unlike open-end funds, new shares in a closed-end fund are not created by managers to meet demand from investors. Instead, the shares can be purchased and sold only in the market, which is the original design of the mutual fund, which predates open-end mutual funds but offers the same actively-managed pooled investments.

A joint venture (JV) is a business entity created by two or more parties, generally characterized by shared ownership, shared returns and risks, and shared governance. Companies typically pursue joint ventures for one of four reasons: to access a new market, particularly emerging markets; to gain scale efficiencies by combining assets and operations; to share risk for major investments or projects; or to access skills and capabilities. Work by Reuer and Leiblein challenged the claim that joint ventures minimize downside risk.

Rights issue

A rights issue or rights offer is a dividend of subscription rights to buy additional securities in a company made to the company's existing security holders. When the rights are for equity securities, such as shares, in a public company, it can be a non-dilutive pro rata way to raise capital. Rights issues are typically sold via a prospectus or prospectus supplement. With the issued rights, existing security-holders have the privilege to buy a specified number of new securities from the issuer at a specified price within a subscription period. In a public company, a rights issue is a form of public offering.

In economics, a reservationprice is a limit on the price of a good or a service. On the demand side, it is the highest price that a buyer is willing to pay; on the supply side, it is the lowest price a seller is willing to accept for a good or service.

A buy–sell agreement, also known as a buyout agreement, is a legally binding agreement between co-owners of a business that governs the situation if a co-owner dies or is otherwise forced to leave the business, or chooses to leave the business.

David Tweed is an Australian businessman who conducts a business of offering to buy securities at either below market value, or at a price that is above market value but via installments. Paying in installments can disadvantage the seller due to the time value of money. Tweed's business practices are controversial in some quarters and his success has attracted criticism from the media and the Australian financial regulator ASIC. The Federal government has introduced legislation to regulate Tweed's activities.

A shareholders' agreement (SHA) is an agreement amongst the shareholders or members of a company. In practical effect, it is analogous to a partnership agreement. It can be said that some jurisdictions fail to give a proper definition to the concept of shareholders' agreement, however particular consequences of this agreements are defined so far. There are advantages of the shareholder's agreement; to be specific, it helps the corporate entity to maintain the absence of publicity and keep the confidentiality. Nonetheless, there are also some disadvantages that should be considered, such as the limited effect to the third parties and alternation of the stipulated articles can be time consuming.

A deadlock provision, or deadlock resolution clause, is a contractual clause or series of clauses in a shareholders' agreement or other form of joint venture agreement which determines how disagreements on key issues are to be resolved in relation to the management of the enterprise.

Share repurchase is the re-acquisition by a company of its own shares. It represents an alternate and more flexible way of returning money to shareholders.

Piggy-back applies to contractual agreements in law, more specifically shareholder selling rights. To apply, a piggy-back clause must be included in a corporation's shareholder agreement, which is part of the incorporation materials.

Tag-along right

Tag along rights comprise a group of clauses in a contract which together have the effect of allowing the minority shareholder(s) in a corporation to also take part in a sale of shares by the majority shareholder to a third party under the same terms and conditions. Consider an example: A and B are both shareholders in a company, with A being the majority shareholder and B the minority shareholder. C, a third party, offers to buy A's shares at an attractive price, and A accepts. In this situation, tag-along rights would allow B to also participate in the sale under the same terms and conditions as A.

United Kingdom company law Law that regulates corporations formed under the Companies Act 2006

The United Kingdom company law regulates corporations formed under the Companies Act 2006. Also governed by the Insolvency Act 1986, the UK Corporate Governance Code, European Union Directives and court cases, the company is the primary legal vehicle to organise and run business. Tracing their modern history to the late Industrial Revolution, public companies now employ more people and generate more of wealth in the United Kingdom economy than any other form of organisation. The United Kingdom was the first country to draft modern corporation statutes, where through a simple registration procedure any investors could incorporate, limit liability to their commercial creditors in the event of business insolvency, and where management was delegated to a centralised board of directors. An influential model within Europe, the Commonwealth and as an international standard setter, UK law has always given people broad freedom to design the internal company rules, so long as the mandatory minimum rights of investors under its legislation are complied with.

Stock Shares into which ownership of the corporation is divided

In finance, stock consists of all of the shares into which ownership of a corporation or company is divided. A single share of the stock means fractional ownership of the corporation in proportion to the total number of shares. This typically entitles the shareholder (stockholder) to that fraction of the company's earnings, proceeds from liquidation of assets, or voting power, often dividing these up in proportion to the amount of money each stockholder has invested. Not all stock is necessarily equal, as certain classes of stock may be issued for example without voting rights, with enhanced voting rights, or with a certain priority to receive profits or liquidation proceeds before or after other classes of shareholders.

<i>Ebrahimi v Westbourne Galleries Ltd</i>

Ebrahimi v Westbourne Galleries Ltd [1973] AC 360 is a United Kingdom company law case on the rights of minority shareholders. The case was decided in the House of Lords.

<i>Revlon, Inc. v. MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings, Inc.</i>

Revlon, Inc. v. MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings, Inc., 506 A.2d 173, was a landmark decision of the Delaware Supreme Court on hostile takeovers.

PartyGaming plc was a network of gambling sites operated by Ruth Parasol in the Caribbean. Founded in 1997, the network eventually operated under an umbrella company called iGlobalMedia, which then changed its name to PartyGaming. PartyGaming's flagship site, PartyPoker.com, was launched in 2001. Its primary shareholders were Parasol, Group Operations Director Anurag Dikshit, Marketing Director Vikrant Bhargava, and Russ DeLeon.

References

  1. ↑ "Trigger Happy or Gun Shy? Dissolving Common-Value Partnerships with Texas Shootouts" (PDF).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.