June 15 2011 Viewpoint[1]

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • 8/6/2019 June 15 2011 Viewpoint[1]

    1/2

    Dow Jones Daily Bankruptcy Review| 12

    Wednesday, June 15, 2011

    Copyright Dow Jones & Company, Inc

    All Rights Reserved

    ViewpointOne of a series of opinion columns by bankruptcy professionals

    By Jonathan P. Friedland and David Solomon

    Youre a private equity sponsor. One of your portfoliocompanies, which historically had strong financial per-formance, has been negatively affected by the greatrecession and is now distressed and deemed to beoverleveraged. The prospects for the business,however, remain strong. The companys lenders arepressuring your fund to put in fresh money (somethingyou cannot or will not do) or to get out of the way sothe company can be sold in order to generate fundsto pay off at least a portion of the existing debt,resulting in the lenders taking a haircut and leavingyour fund with nothing.

    What do you do? There are a number of options andmany factors to consider before selecting the optimalstrategy. Anyone who has been down this road has beencounseled about directors duties in the zone of insolven-cy; anyone who has concluded these negotiations has atrue appreciation for that old adage, pigs get fat andhogs get slaughtered.

    One solution we like but that we think is underutilized isfor the sponsor to cause the company to be sold to its

    employees using an employee stock ownership plan(ESOP). A well-structured ESOP transaction canenhance the cash flow of the portfolio company afterthe transaction as a result of various tax benefitsafforded a company that sponsors an ESOP. This, inturn, can enable the company to more easily service itsdebt. Also, by implementing an ESOP, the companysemployees will be provided with incentives based on thevalue of the equity of the company, which in our experi-ence comports with studies that have shown thatequity-based compensation significantly improves theESOP companys financial performance and its retentionof key employees.

    The cash-flow advantages of an ESOP company aregenerally derived as a result of the fact that an ESOPcompany is essentially able to repay its indebtedness ona pre-tax basis. When a company adopts an ESOP toengage in a stock purchase transaction, the ESOPtypically borrows money from the company (which fundstypically come, in turn, from a bank or other third-partylender) to purchase the stock (the ESOP loan). TheESOP loan is repaid with contributions made by thecompany to the ESOP and, because the ESOP is a

    tax-qualified retirement plan, the company receives a taxdeduction for these contributions. The company, in turn,uses the monies it receives from the ESOP to repay itsdebt to the companys lender. This effectively enables thecompany to get a tax deduction for both the interest andthe principal on its loans.

    Also, if the company is an S corporation, there will beno federal income tax (and, perhaps, no state incometaxes) to the extent of the percentage of the ESOPsownership of the equity of the company. The reason is

    that an S corporation is a pass-through entity, so thecompany does not pay any tax on its income. Instead,the companys shareholders pay tax on that incomebased on theirpro-rata share of the stock of thecompany that they own. However, an ESOP is a tax-exempt trust for federal (and in many cases state)income tax purposes. So, if the ESOP winds up owning100% of the companys outstanding shares of stock, thecompany can operate on a go-forward basis as an entityexempt from federal (and, in many cases, state) incometaxes. This, of course, can have a dramatic impact oncash flow.

    In addition, what we really like about this strategy

    when we represent the sponsor is that the sponsor canretain control of the board of the company it just sold tothe ESOP even if it owns none of the stock of thecompany after the sale. This is because the stock heldby the ESOP is not directly owned by the employee-owners but is controlled by a trustee who can beappointed by the current board of directors of thecompany and who can be required in the ESOP saledocuments to retain the current board of directors andexisting company management after the closing ofthe transaction.

    An additional benefit to an ESOP transaction is that itcan be structured internally, without taking the company

    to market. The transaction can thus be more easilyclosed within a specific time frame that meets thesponsors objectives.

    Were not suggesting this strategy is likely to be apanacea. If the sponsor is out of the money, the salesprice paid by a newly formed ESOP is not any morelikely to go into the sponsors pockets than if the buyeris a third party. The difference, however, is that the

    Using An ESOP To Exit A Distressed Portfolio Company

    continued on next page

  • 8/6/2019 June 15 2011 Viewpoint[1]

    2/2

    Dow Jones Daily Bankruptcy Review| 13

    Wednesday, June 15, 2011

    Copyright Dow Jones & Company, Inc

    All Rights Reserved

    ViewpointOne of a series of opinion columns by bankruptcy professionals

    restructured company will be able to support more debt.This, in turn, may encourage the companys currentlenders to remain committed to funding the companygoing forward rather than going to market to sell thecompany to a third party, particularly since such a saleis not likely to generate enough cash to pay the lendersin full. In addition, an ESOP transaction can be struc-tured to enable the sponsor to retain a stake in thecompany after the consummation of the sale. This isfar less likely if the company is sold to another sponsoror a competitor.

    A graceful exit from a troubled portfolio company is ofteneasier wished for than achieved. Next time you have todeal with a troubled portfolio company, consider whetherusing an ESOP is a viable solution.

    continued from page 12 Opinions expressed are those of the author,

    not of Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

    Jonathan P. Friedland and David Solomon are

    partners with Chicago-based Levenfeld Pearlstein, a

    law firm representing businesses across the U.S.

    and around the world. Solomon's practice involves

    a great deal of ESOP work; Friedland's practice

    involves a great deal of restructuring work.

    Friedland can be reached at [email protected],

    and Solomon can be reached at

    [email protected].