The current coronavirus crisis has prompted all businesses, large and small, to consider carefully their cashflow position and projections.
Please note: the information contained in our legal updates are correct as of the original date of publication
The current coronavirus crisis has prompted all businesses, large and small, to consider carefully their cashflow position and projections.
Businesses (and indeed individuals) who have sold companies or businesses over recent years may have, as part of the terms of the deal, agreed to a “withholding”, “retention” or “escrow” (for the purpose of this article we will use the term “retention”). Such retentions provide a buyer with some security for any future warranty and indemnity claims (“Claims”). Some retentions are general – there to secure all Claims – and others relate to specific Claims or risks.
These arrangements will often result in cash being deposited in a blocked bank account at closing (either with lawyers or escrow agents). Sometimes, if the buyer’s credit worthiness is good enough, the retention is actually just withheld by the buyer and becomes a debt owed at a later date (subject to any rights of set off for Claims in the interim).
For sellers, there are options available to accelerate the release of this cash. In the current climate, sellers may want to access this cash (1) to help fund other business interests of the seller, (2) more generally, to improve their cash position in these uncertain times or (3) if they are concerned about the future financial position of the buyer as a result of the coronavirus.
There may be a cost to a seller of releasing early, as explored below, but this may still be attractive and quicker to achieve than going through a credit or other capital raising process needed for other forms of financing.
Retentions are released to a seller on the agreed release date, which depending on the risks being secured is commonly between 12 and 36 months from completion (“Release Date”). Of course, the parties can agree to an earlier release. Any release/payment would be subject to set off/deduction for settled/determined Claims or prolonged withholding/retention for reasonable Claims which have yet to be settled/determined.
Whether a buyer agrees to it will likely depend on a number of factors, including:
Warranty and indemnity (“W&I”) insurers are working with buyers and sellers to facilitate early release of retentions. In reality, insurance is likely to be used for larger retentions given the cost of the insurance premium and legal costs in implementing the policy or where there was W&I insurance on the original transaction and insurance to facilitate the early release of a retention can act as a “top up”.
For a buyer, a policy (whether standalone or top up) would replace the retention as security in respect of a Claim, making it more likely they will allow early release. For a seller, it will help to facilitate the early release of a retention and will shelter a seller (wholly or partly) from any Claims which arise between the date of the insurance policy and the date on which the seller’s liability for Claims expires in the sale and purchase agreement (SPA).
As part of the negotiation, the parties will need to agree what the seller’s revised cap on liability will be if insurance is obtained – a seller is likely to want a £nil cap on liability to ensure that there is no recourse against them in the event of a Claim (particularly if they are paying a “discount” and covering the cost of the insurance) but the buyer may want the seller to retain some “skin in the game” and have a de-minimis cap on liability or a cap equal to the excess under the policy of insurance.
As the buyer is unlikely to be worse off where insurance is used to facilitate the early release (save in respect of any costs associated with it which may be borne by a seller), a seller is likely to have a stronger argument that the discount for early release should be minimal (perhaps limited to the costs that the buyer will incur to effect the early release).
Negotiating the early release of a retention is possible without insurance to support it provided that the parties can agree the terms associated with the early release.
Given that the buyer would not be replacing its security for Claims in this instance, we would expect any discount to be higher. Effectively the discount would be the buyer’s way of “hedging” the early release against the risk of being unable to recover its losses in respect of a Claim. The buyer may also ask for some kind of guarantee from a party connected to the seller to give the buyer extra comfort in the event that there is a Claim.
It should also be noted that a seller’s exposure in relation to a Claim will remain the same if the retention is released early without insurance. However, any discount agreed for early release should reduce a seller’s overall cap on liability.
If insurance is not an option, it is worth considering whether an early release of only part of the retention would work for a seller. A partial release (subject to the size of the retention) could be more palatable to a buyer if it will leave them with a reasonable buffer for Claims.
If there is a “discount” conceded by a seller for early release (which would ultimately be a reduction in the purchase price) you should consider with your advisers all the consequential implications to the original deal including:
Where there is more than one seller contributing to a retention, they may be in different positions and some may be keener than others to obtain an early release of funds. There is no reason why one seller cannot negotiate a release (perhaps paying a discount) and another not – but it does complicate matters. Sellers who have not obtained a release clearly will be in a position where their retention will be a first port of call for Claims (liability for which is usually joint and several). Insurance will help to solve these issues to a degree but a seller who is not releasing may require a payment to compensate him/her/it for the additional risk. Amendments may also be needed to any contribution agreements between shareholders.
The terms of the SPA will dictate whether all sellers need to agree to an early retention release for some but not all of them. Often such consents can be given by a particular seller on behalf of all (where that seller has been appointed as the “sellers’ representative”).
If you do have cash locked up in a retention account or which has been withheld by a buyer, it may be worth considering making an approach to a buyer to agree an early release. This may be both an efficient and cost-effective way of securing positive cash flow in these uncertain times.
We would be delighted to talk to any sellers who are in this position (or indeed any buyers who have been approached by sellers with a view to early release). We would be happy to help deal with the negotiation and documenting of terms and if necessary, the procurement of insurance.
Co-authored by Peter Allen and Ryan Brown.
In this session, we examined the legal framework around grant funded collaborations and discussed the key risks to be aware of, including IP ownership and compliance with grant terms.
Bishopsgate Corporate Finance and law firm Browne Jacobson have jointly advised on the acquisition of award-winning tech solutions business, Custard Technical Services by US managers services and cyber security provider, Thrive.
National law firm Browne Jacobson has advised long standing retail client, Wilko on the sale and leaseback of its Nottinghamshire distribution centre in Worksop to logistics specialist DHL for £48m.
Law firm Browne Jacobson has appointed former Vice President and Chief Planning Officer (CPO) of Aston Martin Lagonda, Nikki Rimmington as its first Non-Executive Director (NED) of its Manufacturing & Industrials sector strategy board.
In a judgment handed down yesterday the Supreme Court has affirmed that a so called “creditor duty” exists for directors such that in some circumstances company directors are required to act in accordance with, or to consider the interests of creditors. Those circumstances potentially arise when a company is insolvent or where there is a “probability” of an insolvency. We explore below the “trigger” for such a test to apply and its implications.
Created at the end of the Brexit transition period, Retained EU Law is a category of domestic law that consists of EU-derived legislation retained in our domestic legal framework by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. This was never intended to be a permanent arrangement as parliament promised to deal with retained EU law through the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill (the “Bill”).
Browne Jacobson’s corporate technology dealmakers have advised Agilico, a workplace technology business, on its acquisition of Capital Document Solutions Limited for an undisclosed amount.
Browne Jacobson’s lawyers have advised Suez SA and its shareholders on its acquisition of its former UK waste management business – Suez R&R UK - from French headquartered business Veolia for an enterprise value of £2 billion.
The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed the BTI v Sequana appeal and reviewed the existence, content and engagement of the so-called ‘creditor duty’; being the point at which the interest of creditors is said to intrude upon the decision-making of directors of companies in financial distress.
It was reported in May 2022 that the BMW-owned manufacturer had been forced to put a temporary stop on the production of all manual transmission vehicles due to the global semi-conductor shortage and the war in Ukraine. Mini stated that the move was made in order to "ensure production stability".
Browne Jacobson has bolstered its commercial practice in the UK with the appointment of commercial contracts and international trade specialist, Emma Roake, into its City-based London team.
Browne Jacobson’s national private equity (PE) lawyers have advised leading mid-market PE investment firm, Palatine Private Equity (Palatine) on its exit from CTS Group, the fast-growing specialist in testing, inspection and geoengineering consulting services to the construction and infrastructure sectors.
Browne Jacobson’s corporate finance lawyers have advised leading mid-market private equity firm, LDC and management on the sale of specialist managed IT services provider, Littlefish to Bowmark Capital.
The Digital Markets Act (the “DMA”) joins the dots between competition law and data protection law and actively targets data-driven platforms. It is also a comprehensive regulation to take note of, with familiar GDPR-style fines tied to turnover.
Browne Jacobson’s private equity (PE) dealmakers have advised Palatine Private Equity backed CTS Group (Construction Testing Solutions Limited) on its acquisition of In Situ Site Investigation, a market leader in Cone Penetration Testing and Pressuremeter techniques and ground investigation services.
Browne Jacobson’s corporate finance lawyers have advised leading private equity investor, Rcapital Partners LLP (Rcapital) on its majority stake acquisition of managing general agents (MGAs), UK General Insurance Ltd (UKG) and Precision Partnership Limited (PPL) alongside Montague Investment Group LLP who are taking a minority stake.
In an unreported case (Re Active Wear Limited (in Administration)), the High Court has ruled that an out-of-court administration appointment, instigated by a sole director of a company with unmodified model articles, was valid notwithstanding the earlier decision of Deputy Judge Farnhill (also in the High Court) in the case Hashmi v Lorimer-Wing (also known as Re Fore Fitness Investments Holdings Ltd) [2022] EWHC 191 (Ch) (02 February 2022).
Rolls-Royce has shortlisted six locations for its first factory for small nuclear power stations. We look at the impact on regions & local businesses
There are clearly challenging macro-economic factors at play but at Browne Jacobson we continue to see good levels of transactional activity with certain sectors being particularly buoyant: healthcare, financial services, energy & infrastructure and tech.
The Court of Appeal has dismissed two cases regarding rent arrears accrued during the Covid lockdowns. The cases are London Trocadero (2015) LLP v Picturehouse Cinemas Ltd and Bank of New York Mellon (International) Ltd v Cine-UK Ltd.
Browne Jacobson’s corporate lawyers have successfully advised the shareholders of specialist chemical manufacturer, Amity International on its acquisition by Belimed AG, a subsidiary of Metall Zug AG.
In the recent case of Dwyer (UK Franchising) Limited v Fredbar Limited and ano’r [2022] EWCA Civ 889, the Court of Appeal considered the reasonableness of restrictive covenants in a franchise agreement.
Browne Jacobson’s Manchester based corporate lawyers have advised tech enabled shipping and logistics service provider, World Options on its majority buyout by Italian headquartered MBE Worldwide (“MBE”) for an undisclosed sum.
