Teamwork and Communication Versus Too Many Cooks in the Kitchen – Part 1 of 2

Team approaches in contract negotiations can be very effective. In fact, for some contracts, a team approach is essential – particularly when the contract will impact various divisions or facets of a company’s overall existing and future operations.

Consider hypothetical ABC Manufacturing Company (ABC) that has multiple divisions (including Aeronautics and Renewable Energy) operating independently, but within the same general industry groups. Further assume that ABC’s Aeronautics Division wants to license certain technology to Third Party Company (3P), but only for use in wind turbines – not in aeronautics or aerospace – because ABC has plans for use of the technology in those fields, but not in turbines. In this circumstance, it’s likely critical that ABC involve numerous parties in the contract process (although not necessarily in the actual discussions with 3P – see Part 2 on this topic). Who might those parties include, and why?

• Obviously, the heads of the Aeronautics and Renewable Energy Divisions – so that the precise scope and nature of the license can be considered, along with its impact on those divisions (now and in the future). Also likely those who are not division heads, but who may have a deeper understanding of certain products, projects and relationships.
• Research and Development – so that those negotiating the contract terms know what the current state of the technology is, where it may be headed, what rights are licensable, and what rights should be excluded/retained.
• IP – so that there is a clear understanding of what protections exist currently, who will be responsible for maintaining those protections, who has rights to derivative technology, etc.
• Strategic Planning – so that something that seems unimportant now doesn’t “unexpectedly” become important in the future – especially if there are parties within ABC who already knew it’s important.
• Legal – so that rights granted in this contract don’t conflict with rights previously granted to other parties, and the current contract ultimately says what the business people intend.
• Others – there may be any number of others that should be consulted or at least kept informed as to the discussions with 3P – accounting (budgeting and cost), marketing (brand and image), etc.

The point is, many contracts have far reaching and (sometimes) difficult to foresee implications for a company. Involve as many people and divisions as necessary to make sure you are aware of and consider all of these implications.

In Part 2, I’ll discuss the importance of speaking with one voice, notwithstanding the involvement of multiple parties.

Get it Right the First Time

Ever hear the expression – “you never get a second chance to make a first impression”? It’s true in business transactions, and particularly in contract negotiations.

So, what’s my point? After all, many contract negotiations go on for weeks, or even months, and countless drafts are exchanged. So, don’t you really get many opportunities to “get it right”? The answer is, generally, no. Let me explain.

Twice in the past week, I’ve had clients send me a contract for “final review,” only to find out that the contract had actually originated with my client and had already been provided to the other side for review and comment. The problem was, in each case, the contract provided to the other side had substantial problems for my client. By problems, I don’t mean language that I preferred had been worded differently or minor clerical errors. I mean material issues that were overlooked or improperly drafted in such a way that it put my client at substantial risk – business and legal.

This scenario causes problems for a number of reasons. First, it limits your options. Do you (or really, can you even) go back to the other side and ask that substantial changes be made to the contract? If so, do you now have a lack of trust or credibility? Do you give the impression that you are disorganized, or worse yet, unprofessional?

Second, assuming you do go back with changes, do you highlight issues that may have been perfectly acceptable if they had been in the original draft, but that now are subject to strong objection? After all, the initial proposed contract was all about mutual give and take and compromise, whereas these changes are now almost certainly entirely in your favor. Will you have to give something back in return?

Third, by going back, do you delay the process, and perhaps threaten the deal entirely?

And finally, have you placed yourself in a position where you really can’t go back to the other side, and instead simply have to accept the contract as-is?

The moral of the story is, carefully consider the deal (hopefully in cooperation with legal counsel) before you present the first draft of the contract. If you don’t, you may find that you never get the deal that you wanted – or at all.

How to Handle Partners Who Are Bullies

Bullying and bullies are in the news a lot these days. Usually these are kids who physically or mentally torment and intimidate their classmates. In business partnerships, we frequently see a different kind of bully – the partner (who never should have been a partner in the first place) who refuses to listen to other points of view, puts his own interests ahead of those of the partnership, and generally wreaks havoc on the business. So, how do you deal with these bullies?

The first and most effective way is not going into business with them in the first place. There are plenty of articles warning you to choose your partners carefully, so I won’t belabor that point, but it’s worth noting once more – there is virtually no business decision that will affect you more than the decision of who you go into business with – choose well.

Second, have clear, detailed and well thought out organizational and governing documents that all partners understand and agree to at the outset. These documents should cover such basic issues as: (i) who gets to be an owner; (ii) who participates in management and how management decisions are made; (iii) what your general business objectives are; (iv) what happens if the company needs more capital; (v) how you avoid or address disagreements; and (vi) how and when you will make the decision to sell, merge, dissolve or otherwise exit the business or the owners’ partnership.

The third strategy follows logically from the second – having those governing documents in place is not enough – follow them. The easiest way to handle a difficult partnership disagreement is to simply follow the rules that you’ve laid out for the business.

The final strategy is more of an admonition – do NOT allow your difficult partner to bully you into making bad decisions or otherwise treat you or the business unfairly or act unwisely and then claim to be a victim! I see this frequently, and it is NOT an excuse to simply say your partner is a bad person and made you do these things that were bad for you or the company. You’re the caretaker of your business, and no one said it would be easy. Stand up to the bully!

Is Your Lawyer Disruptive? Shouldn’t He/She Be?

When people think of the qualities they want in a lawyer, disruptive doesn’t always come to mind – in fact, it rarely does. However, this is one of the most important qualities in growth stage and entrepreneurial/start-up companies wanting to revolutionize their market segment and change the world. So why don’t clients (especially the kind mentioned in the preceding sentence) insist that their lawyers – in addition to being outstanding technical lawyers – be disruptive? After all, doesn’t it make sense that the most innovative and forward-thinking lawyers would relate best to the most progressive companies and clients? Sadly, I think the reason people don’t generally seek out these qualities in their lawyers is because they don’t know they exist. And, why is that? Because lawyers and the legal community have set the bar so low when it comes to innovation, creativity and client-centric business practices – choosing to require clients to conform to the traditional attorney-client model, rather than the attorneys focusing on what the clients want and need. In my opinion, clients should insist on more – and lawyers should deliver more.

So, I ask, is your lawyer disruptive, and if not, why not? The answer, of course, depends on what it means to be disruptive as a lawyer and whether/how that disruptiveness can benefit you and your company as a client and consumer of legal services. When I think of disruption in the legal world, I don’t mean reckless, hasty, rude or destructive. Rather, what I mean is not just the ability, but the desire, and in fact the affirmative goal, to think outside the box and provide creative client-driven solutions to your business and legal challenges – not canned or pre-scripted “one size fits all” responses from a dusty legal treatise.

With the foregoing definition in mind, you may say, “thank you but no, I don’t want my lawyers to be disruptive – I want them to provide the same “buttoned-down” black letter responses that their forefathers provided to my predecessors and leave creativity to me. If so, then this article probably hasn’t resonated with you. If, however, you like the idea of a creative, disruptive thinking lawyer and law firm, find one – they’re out there!

Understand What No Lawyer or Document Can Do For You

I was recently helping a client with a stock purchase in a deal that just felt wrong to me. Each time we asked a question or reviewed a document, it seemed additional issues, questions and concerns arose. Notwithstanding this fact, the investment bankers, company officers and selling stockholders assured us in each instance that there was no problem – usually with the excuse that it was simply bad record-keeping, a lack of attention to detail or a favorable related party transaction that would not adversely affect the company or my client going forward. In fact, they said, it was precisely because of these circumstances that my client had been presented with this amazing investment opportunity. I did not find these explanations to be persuasive or reassuring, even when the sellers agreed to provide a litany of warranties and representations, broad indemnification rights, and other contractual protections.

In this circumstance, I was compelled to explain to my client a very simple fact – while a lawyer can draft an all-encompassing contract in which virtually every possible risk is anticipated and addressed with detailed indemnifications, aggressive remedial provisions, escrows, etc., that does not turn a bad deal into a good one or provide the same level of protection as walking away from a bad deal.

The simple truth is, if your due diligence yields more questions than answers more uncertainty than certainty, and more risks than opportunities – and if you find yourself spending an inordinate amount of time and effort trying to protect yourself from known and unknown legal risks and possible bad behavior or misrepresentations by the other party (versus ordinary course business risks) – no amount of lawyering and no legal document can adequately protect you. In that case, you really only have 2 choices – (1) walk away from the deal, or (2) draft that over-the-top contract with all of the bells, whistles and protections and “hang on for the ride.” And if you opt for alternative 2, understand that a good lawyer and a good contract do not make a good deal.

The Pros and Cons of the “Just Do It” Mentality

I’m showing my age with this one, but hopefully most reading this will at least vaguely remember the old Nike ads urging you to, “Just Do It.” They were filled with pictures of great athletes “giving 110%,” “going the extra mile,” and otherwise living the “no pain, no gain” mantra. I’m a big believer in that portion of the message and note that it would seem to have equal applicability and validity in the business world as well as the sports world. After all, it’s not easy to excel or reach the top (or even your own best) in any activity – without extremely hard work and complete focus and dedication, you’re not likely to get there in sports, business or life.

However, the other message that some people got from the “Just Do It” slogan is extreme urgency – the need to move immediately, take unreasonable chances and bet it all to succeed – throwing caution to the wind in exchange for moving quickly. While that may (or in fact may not) be a reasonable thing to do in your sports and fitness training, I believe this approach is both imprudent and generally unnecessary in your business matters, and sometimes leads to disaster.

The bottom line is, I think “Just Do It” is a great mantra for buying shoes – and even for bringing out the inner athlete, inner entrepreneur, or inner risk-taker of virtually any kind in all of us. After all, great ideas, great people and great companies usually start with someone discarding the status quo and opting instead to take a risk by introducing some sort of “disruptive” idea or concept. However, I don’t think it is a great strategy for running your business. In that regard, I prefer one of the famous quotes by the late John Wooden – “Be quick, but don’t hurry.”

Know Where You Want to Go Before You Start

You’d never leave on a family vacation without knowing where you’re going and what you’ll do when you get there. So, why would you begin a business negotiation without knowing what your objectives and acceptable outcomes are? My answer – you shouldn’t.

So, am I saying you need to know exactly where your negotiations must conclude before you even begin discussions? Of course not – negotiations necessarily involve multiple parties, all of whom have their own goals and expectations. It would be foolish to think you can predict and control all possible outcomes, and short-sighted and unrealistic to believe the only successful outcome will be exactly the one most beneficial to you. After all, successful negotiations almost always require give and take from all parties to ultimately arrive at a win-win arrangement. Without this, at least one party will, presumably, have no incentive (or not enough incentive) to do the deal.

What is critical, however, is that you not enter into negotiations without giving careful thought to what your objectives are, the ways that you might be able to achieve them, and the outcomes that would be acceptable. Note that I’ve said objectives, ways and outcomes – plural. Just like the old saying, “there’s more than one way to skin a cat” – there’s almost always more than one way to structure a business deal.

I recommend you follow these basic suggestions before entering into business negotiations:

• Identify your ultimate objectives – the primary reasons you’re considering this deal.

• Consider the various ways that you might be able to achieve those objectives.

• Identify your secondary objectives – things that would be nice to get, but are not essential.

• Consider the various ways that you might be able to achieve those without compromising on the primary objectives. Also consider things that you would view as deal-killers.

• To the extent you’re able, go through the same analysis from the other party or parties’ perspective – see the deal through their eyes.

• Now, once again, consider how you can achieve your primary (and hopefully secondary) objectives AND how the other parties might also achieve theirs. Hopefully there are several ways to get there – some of which may be more or less desirable to you, but all of which would be acceptable.

• Having gone through this exercise, it’s now time to negotiate.

Remember, your best way to achieve a successful outcome is to consider what that might look like before entering into negotiations, rather than looking back and wondering what went wrong.

The Importance of Follow-Through and Tying Up Loose Ends

Averting a crisis is exciting! Negotiating a deal is exciting! Closing a deal is exciting! Moving on to the next deal is exciting! Making a follow-up “To-Do List” and completing the tasks on that list is not. However, I see time and again situations where important post-closing items fall through the cracks and ultimately end up costing parties time and money – often resulting in lost opportunities, disappointed expectations and a failure to obtain the full benefit of the bargain that was struck.

So what are some of the most common examples of poor follow-through? You might be surprised – they include failure to:
• actually sign the transaction documents, or to obtain all necessary signatures from parties such as, e.g., guarantors;
• obtain final executed documents and keep them where you can locate them in the future;
• attach critical exhibits – like legal descriptions, product schedules, minimum purchase quotas, etc.;
• obtain bonds, proof of insurance or important loss payee designations;
• docket important future dates, like delivery of tax returns, financial statements, renewal/termination dates, etc.;
• properly file (or to promptly file) documents such as mortgages, UCC financing statements, patent applications, etc.;
• follow the terms of the transaction documents, or to execute an amendment when the deal changes;
• require the return of confidential information and business assets such as copies of agreements, customer lists, product specifications, laptops, cell phones, etc. upon the termination of a business relationship; and
• obtain required approvals from lenders, shareholders, directors, etc.

The above items are merely examples of failures to follow through that can have a devastating impact on a deal or company. My advice – don’t be the company that fails to follow through by tying up the loose ends of your deals. Make post-closing checklists; prepare executive summaries of important agreements; docket dates; keep originals (or at least copies) of important agreements where you can locate them; and most importantly, take the necessary steps to realize and protect the value of your deals!

The Agreement is Signed – Now What?

Ever heard someone say, “Now that the contract is signed, we can put it in a drawer and never look at it again.”? I understand this thinking – if it means the business terms are so clear, and the relationship is so good, that they don’t need to obsess over contractual minutia. In other words, compliance is sort of on auto-pilot. What I’m opposed to, however, is not knowing, or directly ignoring, the requirements of your contracts.

Businesses ignore their contracts for a variety of reasons, including:

 • Things are going so well from a business standpoint that they don’t care what the contract says.
• Conversely, things are so bad that they don’t care.
• They’re too busy, or compliance is too much of a hassle.
• Or, finally, the contract simply doesn’t accurately state their business arrangement.

None of these are good reasons to ignore your contracts. Non-compliance means risk; risk means exposure; and exposure threatens the success (and sometimes survival) of your business.

Here are a few suggestions to ensure contract compliance:

• Keep your contracts as simple as possible.
• Try to match your contract terms with your general business practices and processes.
• Seek uniformity in your contracts (and make sure your lawyers do this when they draft them) on both business terms and more standard “boilerplate”terms.
• Have the same person negotiate the same types of contracts.
• Assign a specific person to be ultimately responsible for performance, oversight and compliance for each contract – preferably the person who negotiated it or someone who is directly involved in performance.
• Prepare executive summaries of the material terms, and review them periodically.
• Make sure those directly involved in the performance each contract know its terms.
• And finally, don’t enter into contracts that don’t accurately state your business agreement, and amend them if circumstances change so that they no longer do so.

Think of it this way – if the deal was important enough to enter into a contract, then it’s important enough to make sure that contract is accurate and to comply with it.

What Would a Judge (or Jury) Do?

I was working through a contract recently with a client and having the same conversation I’ve had many times over the years.  My client informed me that she and the other party had a high level of trust and had verbally agreed upon the basic business terms to govern their relationship.  Counsel for the other party had then been asked to prepare a simple contract and came back with something quite lengthy and detailed and quite different from what the parties had discussed and agreed.

So, what’s the best way to approach this situation?  My client’s inclination was to raise her concerns in an e-mail but (to avoid delays) otherwise just execute the agreement and move ahead.  After all, the parties trusted each other and knew what the deal was, and they didn’t want lawyers getting in the way – which was already happening with the first draft of the contract.  As you may guess, I was not in favor of this approach.

In these situations, perhaps the most basic question is similar to the one on so many bracelets – “WWJD?”  I don’t mean the question that immediately comes to mind for most of us, but rather – “What would a judge or jury do” if confronted with this contract and this set of circumstances?  Or more specifically, what would a judge or jury, without knowing the parties and their agreement beyond what’s in the written contract, determine their legal rights and obligations to be?  If you can’t live with the various likely interpretations, then you need to redraft the agreement, even if it means taking out much of the inaccurate detail and taking a “less is more” approach – which is what we did in this case.

No matter how quickly you want to move and how important the deal is, the material business terms should be accurately reflected in a written contract; and you should never sign a contract that misstates those terms – no matter how high the level of trust.  Remember – “WWJD?”