Purchase of a Business – What Are Usual or Typical Conditions Precedent That a Purchaser Would Want in a Share Purchase Agreement

,

Introduction

Acquiring shares in a company is a momentous decision that demands careful consideration and protection of the buyer’s interests. Within a share purchase agreement, conditions precedent play a pivotal role in safeguarding the purchaser’s investment. In this blog post, we’ll explore the vital conditions that purchasers typically seek in a share purchase agreement to ensure a seamless and secure acquisition process.

Key Conditions Precedent

Due Diligence: This comprehensive examination assesses the target company’s financial, legal, operational, and regulatory aspects, uncovering potential risks and liabilities. This would include a review of financial statements and tax returns.

Consents and Waivers: Assurance that all required consents, approvals, and waivers from third parties, such as lenders or business partners, are obtained, facilitating a seamless transfer of ownership.

Material Adverse Change: Buyers require confirmation that no significant adverse changes have occurred in the target company since the initial negotiations began, protecting them from unexpected challenges.

Litigation Assessment: Verifying the absence of pending lawsuits or legal disputes is crucial to gauge the company’s overall stability and reputation.

Employee Matters: Addressing employee-related issues, such as agreements, benefits, and severance obligations, ensures a smooth transition and fosters employee goodwill.

Clear Title to Shares: Purchasers must verify that the seller has clear and marketable title to the shares, free from any encumbrances or claims.

Financing Arrangements: If external financing is required, purchasers may include conditions to obtain necessary financing commitments, securing the funds for the acquisition.

Tax Compliance: Ensuring the target company is up-to-date on tax matters and has no outstanding liabilities safeguards the purchaser from future tax burdens. A holdback may be required to offset the risk of unpaid tax.

Corporate Governance: Compliance with corporate documents, bylaws, and constitutional requirements establishes a stable foundation for the acquisition.

Intellectual Property Rights: Confirming the ownership or proper licensing of essential intellectual property assets is crucial to maintaining business continuity.

Asset Investigations: whether the land, equipment and inventory owned by the target company are in a certain state or condition and are clear of any charges, liens or encumbrances.

Not what you’re looking for?  Read What Are Usual Or Typical Conditions Precedent That a Purchaser Would Want in an Asset Purchase Agreement? 

Or Key Differences Between an Asset Purchase and a Share Purchase in Business Acquisitions

 

 

 

/by

Key Differences Between an Asset Purchase and a Share Purchase in Business Acquisitions

,

Introduction:

When buying a business in British Columbia, two primary methods are available: an asset purchase and a share purchase. Each approach comes with its own legal, financial, and tax implications, and understanding these differences is crucial for making an informed decision that aligns with the buyer’s goals. This blog post will explore the key distinctions between asset purchase and share purchase transactions in British Columbia.

Nature of the Transaction: An asset transaction involves the acquisition or divestment of certain or all of a company’s assets, which may include equipment, inventory, real property, contracts, or lease agreements. Some liabilities may still transfer due to successor liability rules, but the seller retains ownership of some of the operating entity. On the other hand, a share purchase involves acquiring shares or ownership interests of the target company, resulting in ownership of the entire business, including assets, liabilities, and obligations. The buyer inherits all existing liabilities and risks associated with the business, even those not immediately apparent.

Liabilities and Risk: With an asset purchase, the buyer has more control over the liabilities they assume, leaving behind unwanted debts with the seller. However, certain liabilities may still transfer due to certain legislation. In a share purchase, the buyer assumes all existing liabilities and risks, including known and unknown ones, like pending lawsuits and tax obligations. If the business being purchased carries substantial potential for unknown liability claims, such as product liability, professional negligence, or environmental hazards, it may strongly indicate the necessity of opting for an asset purchase.

Contracts and Permits: In an asset purchase, the buyer usually negotiates or obtains new contracts, licenses, and permits to continue business operations, as existing agreements do not automatically transfer. On the other hand, in a share purchase, existing contracts and permits typically remain in force since the legal entity remains unchanged, avoiding the need for extensive renegotiations. This can be beneficial as in most cases it allows the buyer to continue business operations without the need for extensive renegotiations or obtaining new approvals.

Tax Implications: The choice between a share acquisition or asset acquisition becomes more complex due to the inherent conflict between the interests of the vendor and purchaser regarding income tax considerations. Typically, buyers prefer asset purchases as it provides a cost base for certain assets which can be depreciated. On the other hand, sellers prefer share purchases as it may result in preferential tax treatment, treating the sale proceeds as capital gains. Resolving this conflict becomes a matter of negotiation.

Due Diligence: Share purchase due diligence is broader and more encompassing, as it involves assessing the entire target company and assuming all its liabilities. On the other hand, asset purchase due diligence is more focused, as it centers on the specific assets to be acquired and allows for more control over the liabilities taken on by the purchaser.

Transfer of Employees: In an asset purchase, employment contracts do not automatically transfer to the buyer. While the asset purchase allows for a selective assembly of the workforce, certain obligations, such as length of service for severance pay, may still transfer. On the other hand, in a share purchase, the purchaser inherits the entire workforce and all severance obligations to employees, significantly impacting future plans for downsizing or integration.

Conveyancing Costs: Transferring shares is simpler than completing an asset transfer. Share transfers involve limited conveyance documents, while asset transfers require an extensive set of documents and potential third-party consents. Asset transfers may also incur significant registration costs and Property Transfer Tax. Share purchases may have to deal with contracts with third parties that contain restrictions on a change in control.

Want to know more?

What Are Usual Or Typical Conditions Precedent That a Purchaser Would Want in an Asset Purchase Agreement? 

What Are Usual Or Typical Conditions Precedent That a Purchaser Would Want in a Share Purchase Agreement?

 

/by

Understanding the Usual Terms for a Letter of Intent in British Columbia Business Purchase

,

Introduction:

A letter of intent (LOI) is a valuable tool for parties seeking to assess their initial agreement on significant business terms before diving into formal purchase and sale negotiations. Acting as “term sheets,” a LOI streamlines the creation of final binding agreements.

Common LOI Terms

Parties: Clearly identify the involved parties accurately, providing their full legal names and addresses, ensuring the document’s legality and a strong foundation for negotiations. Additionally, the LOI should identify any rights that are assignable to a third party.

Purchase Price: Outline the purchase price, either as a fixed figure or within a negotiable range, along with payment method and timing details. Additionally, the sellers may often require purchasers to make a deposit towards the purchase price.

Assets and Liabilities: Clearly specify the assets and liabilities to be included in the purchase to avoid any misunderstandings during negotiations.

Due Diligence: Grant the buyer the right to conduct due diligence on the business to ensure transparency and assess viability.

Exclusivity: Consider an exclusivity clause to commit both parties to negotiate exclusively during the specified period.

Important Dates: To ensure a smooth and efficient transaction, it is advisable to establish a well-defined timeline that outlines key dates for signing the purchase agreement, target closing date, and other critical milestones.

 

Non-Solicitation: The seller will aim to incorporate a binding clause in the letter of intent, preventing the buyer from soliciting or recruiting the seller’s employees if the transaction does not proceed. On the other hand, the buyer will seek to restrict the non-solicitation provision to enable hiring the seller’s employees through general job postings.

Confidentiality: Include a confidentiality clause to safeguard proprietary information exchanged during negotiations. Additionally, the confidentiality prevents employees from becoming preoccupied with the ramifications of the sale and maintains their loyalty.

Binding or Non-Binding Nature: Explicitly state whether any part of the LOI is binding on the parties.

Termination: Address conditions for termination, such as mutual agreement or failure to reach a definitive agreement.

Conclusion

The LOI sets the stage for negotiations when purchasing a business in British Columbia. By outlining key terms and conditions, buyers and sellers establish a framework for discussions and ensure a smooth and transparent transaction process.

 

/by

The Advantages and Disadvantages of Arbitration Clauses

, ,

Introduction:

 

Arbitration has become a popular alternative to court proceedings for resolving disputes. It offers a range of benefits, including privacy, informality, and efficiency, making it an attractive option for many businesses. However, like any legal process, it also has its downsides. This article will explore the advantages and disadvantages of arbitration clauses to help you make an informed decision when choosing this method for dispute resolution.

 

Advantages

 

Privacy and Confidentiality:

One of the main reasons for the inclusion of an arbitration clause in contracts is the ability to keep the proceedings private. Unlike court proceedings, where documents are public and hearings are open, arbitration takes place behind closed doors, shielding the parties from public scrutiny. This confidentiality enables the parties to argue their case without fear of reputational damage, which can be critical for maintaining a positive business image.

 

Informality and Speed:

Arbitration offers a more informal process compared to court proceedings. The rules of procedure and evidence before an arbitrator are more relaxed, providing a less rigid and intimidating atmosphere. Additionally, arbitration is typically much faster, allowing cases to be resolved in a matter of months, whereas court cases can drag on for years due to backlogs in the legal system.

 

Specialized Decision-Maker:

In arbitration, parties have the advantage of selecting an arbitrator with specialized knowledge and expertise in the area of law relevant to their case. This is in contrast to the court system, where judges are assigned randomly and may lack experience in specific legal fields. The ability to choose a knowledgeable decision-maker can lead to more informed and fair judgments.

 

Cost Flexibility:

Arbitration offers flexibility in cost allocation. Parties can negotiate who pays for the arbitrator’s fees, the venue, and the legal fees of the winning party. Moreover, by avoiding complex legal procedures like discovery, which occurs in court, parties can limit their overall costs. However, it is worth noting that the availability of qualified arbitrators on Vancouver Island and the potential high costs may be a drawback.

 

Disadvantages:

 

Limited Discovery:

One significant drawback of arbitration is the limited discovery process. Unlike court proceedings, arbitration may not allow for an extensive exchange of information about witnesses and evidence before a trial. This can make it challenging to gather sufficient evidence to prove a party’s position.

 

Finality of Decisions:

Perhaps the most significant downside of arbitration is the limited avenue for appeal. Once an arbitrator renders a decision, it is usually final and binding on both parties. In contrast, court decisions can often be appealed to higher courts. This finality can leave parties with little recourse if they believe the arbitrator made a mistake.

 

Conclusion:

 

Arbitration offers several advantages that can be highly beneficial in resolving disputes. It provides privacy, efficiency, and the ability to choose a specialized decision-maker. However, it also comes with its drawbacks, such as limited discovery and the finality of decisions. Before including arbitration clauses in contracts, it is crucial for parties to carefully consider their specific needs and preferences, seeking legal advice to ensure the chosen method aligns with their goals.

 

/by

Major Changes to Employer Obligations Under the Workers Compensation Act – Effective November. 24, 2022

,

Our Corporate and Commercial clients should take notice that Bill 41 – 2022: Workers Compensation Amendment Act (No. 2), 2022, received Royal Assent on November 24, 2022 (the “Amendments”).

These Amendments introduce important changes to BC’s Workers Compensation Act (the “WCA”). This has many implications for how employers are expected to deal with injured workers. Employers should be up to date on these changes since they have a significant effect on administrative decisions, cost calculations, and employee relations policies.

First, employees who have been employed for 12 continuous months before their injury and who were injured at work are entitled to reinstatement in a suitable role. This applies to employees who sustained their injuries within two years of the amendments coming into force. Employers now have an obligation to accommodate such injured employees to the point of undue hardship. This standard is measured by the specific circumstances of the case but financial detriment and workplace disruption can be taken into account. An employer who terminates an injured employee within 6 months of returning to work can be deemed in breach of the new obligations unless the employer can show that the termination is for other legitimate reasons. Businesses who employ fewer than 20 employees are exempt. Additionally, if an employee has not returned to work two years after being injured, the employer is then released from their obligation to maintain employment.

WorkSafeBC is in charge of resolving disputes between employers and employees and each is entitled to make complaints about the other. As such, both employers and employees have a duty to cooperate in order to find suitable work for an injured employee.

Under the Amendments, employers face additional penalties if they attempt to prevent employees from reporting injuries or claim compensation. WorkSafeBC will investigate and impose fines if an employer is in breach of the obligations. To facilitate these investigations the Amendments also established a Fair Practices Commissioner who reports to WorkSafeBC, makes recommendations, and creates an annual report.

Since many of these amendments result in increased administrative costs, employers would be prudent to update their workplace injury policies in response to these changes. Proactivity will also reduce the likelihood of being found in breach of the new obligations.

/by

Update and reminder! URGENT: B.C. LAND OWNER TRANSPARENCY REGISTER (“LOTR”)

, , ,

URGENT: B.C. LAND OWNER TRANSPARENCY REGISTER (“LOTR”)

We write to advise that effective November 30, 2021, the B.C. Government requires that
any Corporation, Trust or Partnership that owns an interest in real estate must file a
Land Owner Transparency Report with the Land Owner Transparency Registry.
Failure to file may result in government-imposed penalties.

What is the Land Owner Transparency Registry?

The Land Owner Transparency Registry is a publicly searchable registry of information about
beneficial ownership of land in British Columbia. Beneficial land owners are people who own or
control land indirectly, such as through a corporation, partnership, or trust.

The Registry is intended to end hidden ownership of land and combat money laundering in B.C.
The B.C. provincial government created the LOTR to identify the individuals that actually own
real estate in the province.

Does the Land Owner Transparency Registry apply to you?

With few exceptions, all corporations, partnerships, and trusts that own real estate in British
Columbia must register. Trusts include formal trusts, bare trusts, and prescribed trusts.

What do you need to do?

If you own an interest in land in a corporation, partnership, or trust, you must prepare and
register a Transparency Report with the LOTR by November 30, 2022. An interest in land
includes a fee simple interest, life estate, or long-term lease.

Only a Legal Professional can register the Report.

The Transparency Report contains information about:

1. The corporation, partnership, or trust that owns real estate (“Reporting Bodies”);
and,

2. The individuals who are beneficial owners of the corporation, partnership, or
trust, as well as settlors of trusts (“Interest Holders”).

The Transparency Report discloses information about Interest Holders, including:

1. Name
2. Citizenship
3. Social Insurance Number (or Individual Tax Number)
4. Date of Birth,
5. Residency for Tax Purposes, and
6. Address

Only some of this information will be publicly searchable, and certain Interest Holders are
eligible to restrict what is available to the public. Government agencies will have access to all
information. All Interest Holders must be advised that their personal information was included
in a Transparency Report and a special letter giving notice under the legislation must be
provided to the Interest Holder.

The Transparency Report must be uploaded to the LOTR Registry online.

The report must also be updated when the information concerning the Interest Holder changes, for
example, a change in residential address, name, or ceasing to be an interest holder.
Specific reporting requirements apply for each type of corporation, partnership, trust, and
Interest Holder.
A failure to prepare and upload a Transparency Report may result in the government pursuing
administrative penalties of up to $50,000 or 5% of the assessed value of the real estate.

What can Heath Law LLP do to help?

We have a team of lawyers and staff well versed in preparing Transparency Reports and
compliance under this new LOTR legislation.

Please advise our office by November 1, 2022, if you own real estate in a corporation, trust or
partnership, and if you would like our assistance in preparing and filing a Land Owner
Transparency Report.

Yours truly,
HEATH LAW LLP

/by

Limitation of Liability Clauses in Contracts

, , ,

6362222 Canada Inc. v. Prelco Inc., 2021 SCC 39: A Victory for Limited Liability Clauses

In general, limitation of liability clauses are valid in both Quebec’s Civil system and in the Common Law provinces. However, in Quebec limitation of liability clauses are tempered by articles in the Civil Code of Quebec prohibiting the exclusion of liability for intentional fault, bodily injury, and other public order issues. A recent Supreme Court of Canada case has strengthened the power of limited liability clauses and narrowed the applicability of the Breach of Fundamental Obligation Doctrine.

The case centered on a contractual dispute between 6362222 Canada Inc. (“Createch”), and their client, Prelco Inc. Createch is a consulting firm offering integrated management systems and performance improvement solutions. The parties entered into a contract which included a limited liability clause, stipulating that Createch’s liability to Prelco for damages for any cause whatsoever would be limited to amounts paid to Createch under the contract. A further stipulation was that Createch could not be held liable for any damages resulting from the loss of data, profits or revenue, from the use of products, for any other special, consequential, or indirect damages relating to services and/or material provided pursuant to the contract.

Two years into the contract, Prelco opted to terminate the relationship due to numerous problems with the system and Createch’s implementation. Prelco brought an action against Createch for $6,246,648.94 in damages for the reimbursement of an overpayment, costs for restoring the system, claims from customers, and loss of profits. The Superior Court found the limited liability clause to be unenforceable as it went to the essence of a fundamental obligation, and as such ordered a substantial judgment against Createch. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, stating that the test for unenforceability due to the Doctrine of Breach of a Fundamental Obligation had not been satisfied. In order to find a clause inoperable on this basis, the validity of the clause has to either (a) be contrary to a public order limitation or (b) deprive a contractual obligation of its purpose. The SCC found that the clause did not run contrary to a public order limitation and that since Createch still owed significant obligations to Prelco the validity of the clause would not deprive the contract of its purpose to the extent required by the Doctrine. As such, the principle of freedom of contract supported the enforceability of the limited liability clause.

Takeaway: if you are contracting with a party that is insisting that there be clauses within the contract whereby they are excused from any liability, even for their own negligence, be aware that a Court will probably uphold the limitation of liability clause in the contract. In such a situation, you should consider the extent to which you can insure over the risks that flow from the contracting party’s negligence.

/by

Relief from Forfeiture under a Commercial Lease

, , ,

Relief from forfeiture is an extraordinary equitable remedy that the courts can apply at their discretion, which allows them to forgive imperfect compliance with a contractual or statutory requirement. In choosing to apply relief from forfeiture, the court is deciding to protect a party against a loss that would otherwise occur from that party’s breach on the basis that not to do so would be unequitable.

In a recent case, Airside Event Spaces Inc. v Langley, 2021 BCCA 306, the courts have reiterated that an applicant must act in good faith in order for relief from forfeiture to be appropriate, regardless of the disproportionality between the loss suffered on forfeiture and the loss suffered by the other party due to the breach of contract.

In this case, the company was leasing a hangar at the Langley Regional Airport from the city of Langley, which the city had terminated because the company breached the lease contract. The company admitted that it had breached the lease in numerous ways, and to having failed to remedy the breaches when Langley gave it the chance. Still, the company claimed that the loss that they would suffer compared to the loss that Langley had suffered through their breaches was so disproportionate that the court should use their power to apply relief from forfeiture. The company had paid $440,000 for the premises in 2013, and claimed to have invested in excess of $1.5 million in improvements over the years that it had leased the space. The B.C Supreme Court Judge found that since the company had misled Langley, attempted to conceal breaches of the lease, altered the premises contrary to the lease and without the lessor’s consent, and performed all manner of other misconduct that the company had not remotely acted in good faith. As such, the Judge dismissed the application and refused to apply relief from forfeiture.

On appeal, the Court confirmed that Judge had correctly considered the evidence in this case, and did not commit an error by finding that the consequences of the forfeiture, although significant, did not justify relief from forfeiture due to the company’s clear bad faith.

/by

B.C Land Owner Transparency Register

, , ,

URGENT: B.C. LAND OWNER TRANSPARENCY REGISTER (“LOTR”)

We write to advise that effective November 30, 2021, the B.C. Government requires that
any Corporation, Trust or Partnership that owns an interest in real estate must file a
Land Owner Transparency Report with the Land Owner Transparency Registry.
Failure to file may result in government-imposed penalties.

What is the Land Owner Transparency Registry?

The Land Owner Transparency Registry is a publicly searchable registry of information about
beneficial ownership of land in British Columbia. Beneficial land owners are people who own or
control land indirectly, such as through a corporation, partnership or trust.

The Registry is intended to end hidden ownership of land and combat money laundering in B.C.
The B.C. provincial government created the LOTR to identify the individuals that actually own
real estate in the province.

Does the Land Owner Transparency Registry apply to you?

With few exceptions, all corporations, partnerships and trusts that own real estate in British
Columbia must register. Trusts include formal trusts, bare trusts, and prescribed trusts.

What do you need to do?

If you own an interest in land in a corporation, partnership or trust, you must prepare and
register a Transparency Report with the LOTR by November 30, 2021. An interest in land
includes a fee simple interest, life estate, or long-term lease.

The Transparency Report contains information about:

1. The corporation, partnership or trust that owns real estate (“Reporting Bodies”);
and,

2. The individuals who are beneficial owners of the corporation, partnership or
trust, as well as settlors of trusts (“Interest Holders”).

HEATH LAW LLP

The Transparency Report discloses information about Interest Holders, including:

1. Name
2. Citizenship
3. Social Insurance Number (or Individual Tax Number)
4. Date of Birth,
5. Residency for Tax Purposes, and
6. Address

Only some of this information will be publicly searchable, and certain Interest Holders are
eligible to restrict what is available to the public. Government agencies will have access to all
information. All Interest Holders must be advised that their personal information was included
in a Transparency Report and a special letter giving notice under the legislation must be
provided to the Interest Holder.

The Transparency Report must be uploaded to the LOTR Registry online.
The report must also be updated when the information concerning the Interest Holder changes, for
example, a change in residential address, name, or ceasing to be an interest holder.
Specific reporting requirements apply for each type of corporation, partnership, trust, and
Interest Holder.

A failure to prepare and upload a Transparency Report may result in the government pursuing
administrative penalties of up to $50,000 or 5% of the assessed value of the real estate.

What Heath Law LLP can do to help?

We have a team of lawyers and staff well versed in preparing Transparency Reports and
compliance under this new LOTR legislation.

Please advise our office by November 1, 2021, if you own real estate in a corporation, trust or
partnership, and if you would like our assistance in preparing and filing a Land Owner
Transparency Report.

Yours truly,
HEATH LAW LLP

/by

Could a Director of a Company be held Personally Liable for a Company’s Income Tax?

,

Short Answer:

Generally, a director will not be held liable for corporate income tax absent misconduct. However, s.160 of the Income Tax Act introduces liability in certain circumstances where assets have been transferred by a taxpayer who owes a tax debt. The purpose behind this provision is to ensure that the CRA is able to collect tax debts where assets have been divested for less than market value.

Discussion:

Unlike s. 227.1 of the Income Tax Act, where a director’s liability is limited to tax withholdings and the like, s.160 creates liability for the recipient in a non-arm’s length transfer if the transferor has any kind of tax debt.

S. 160 applies to a person who has received a non-arm’s length transfer of property when the transferor owed a tax debt at the time the transfer occurred, and the transferee did not pay the market value for the property. Per s. 160(1), the transferee may be held jointly and severally liable for the tax debt, including interest, to the lessor of:

a) The value of the property transformed minus consideration given for it by the transferee; or
b) The total tax and interest that the transferor was liable to pay in or in respect of the year of the transfer and any preceding years.

In Borealis Geopower Inc. v the Queen, 2018 TCC 189 the Court applied s. 160 to corporate income tax. S.160, therefore, creates a situation where a director could incur personal liability for all or a portion of the income tax debt of the corporation if they were the transferee as described above.

/by