Category Archives: Corporate Transactional

 

With the raging COVID-19 crisis and its economic fallout, the question that we are fielding the past few days is:

How can I get out of my contract to do “X”?

Each of the three analyses below hinges on the language of the contract.  Thus, “it depends.”

Contract Contingencies

First, with respect to contracts to buy companies, real estate or other assets, consider the contingencies in the contract.  For example, read here and here for easy “exits” from Cincinnati Area Board of Realtors residential contracts for buyers.

“Force majeure” provisions

But what about leases, long-term supply contracts, employment contracts, construction contracts and other commercial contracts?

Many such contracts contain what is known as a “force majeure” provision that essentially contemplates precisely the situation in which we find ourselves today: Some unexpected exigency such as war, famine, or pandemic.

In its essence, a force majeure clause is a contract provision that excuses a party’s performance under a contract when certain circumstances beyond their control arise, making performance impracticable, impossible or illegal. These clauses are common in complex commercial contracts, such as a commercial lease (and we really don’t expect to actually use them).  Yet here we are and they can be a business-saving resource in determining how to proceed.

Can this provision excuse your performance and let you “get out of” a contract? Well, as you might expect your attorney to say: “it depends.”  It depends on the language of the contractual provision.

Here is a sample force majeure provision from a commercial contract:

In the event a party shall be delayed or hindered in or prevented from the performance of any obligation (other than a payment obligation) required under this contract by reason of strikes, lockouts, inability to procure labor or materials, failure of power, fire or other casualty, acts of God, disease, restrictive governmental laws or regulations, riots, insurrection, terrorism, war or any other reason not within the reasonable control of such party, then the performance of such obligation shall be excused for a period of such delay, and the period for the performance of any such act shall be extended for a period equivalent to the period of such delay.

Would such a provision allow a tenant to terminate a lease? Would it allow an employer to terminate an employment contract for a term? Would it allow a manufacturer to avoid its obligations under a supply contract?

In this contractual language, we have the specific exceptions of “disease,” “acts of God,” and “restrictive governmental laws.”   Since we have a disease that is arguably an “act of God,” and government-imposed shutdowns, it would seem that there are multiple bases upon which to argue for termination.  But there could be countervailing arguments as well.  For example, payment obligations are not excused in this sample language.

Some courts have applied force majeure clauses very narrowly, meaning that the specific occurrence has to be contemplated by a force majeure provision. Thus, is the word “disease” in your force majeure clause? Well, COVID-19 would seem to fit tightly within that definition, but does it? Hamilton County, for example, as of this writing, has no reported cases, and yet tens of thousands of people have been thrown out of work because of the fear of pandemic.

Mere diminished performance or increased expenses to perform alone likely would not be a sufficient basis to excuse performance and invoke a force majeure clause.

Business Interruption Insurance

Do you have business interruption insurance that would cover the COVID-19 pandemic consequences?

If you were prescient or cautious enough to buy business interruption coverage, that usually covers only a direct physical loss such as a fire, flood or earthquake.  Some policies require that a loss be specifically designated, while other policies have no such requirement.

• In the case of COVID-19, it may be tough to prove a direct physical loss but what if a workplace is contaminated and unusable due to a COVID-19 outbreak?
• Possibly, business interruption coverage could be invoked if a supplier shuts down and can’t supply product or parts due to COVID-19

Additional considerations

Before triggering contingencies, invoking a force majeure provision or making a claim for insurance coverage, consider the following:

1. Are alternative means to perform your contractual obligations.
2. Will the other party to the contract consider mitigation of the performance problem, such as a rent reduction or other part-performance?
3. Could the parties reach a mutual agreement to terminate a contract or delay performance?

Conclusion

Virtually overnight, our firm and our clients have found ourselves in the middle of single worst crisis in perhaps 100 years.  The first option should be to work towards accommodation with the other party to the contract.  Beyond that, we have the options set forth above to consider for relief in this incredibly challenging environment.

Call one of our skilled and experienced attorneys if you want to explore your legal options or pursue one of these remedies.

As we march through our lives, folks shove documents under our nose for signature all the time.  In reality, we should carefully, very carefully, read them and consider their implications before signing any of them.

After all, there are charlatans and fraudsters standing eager to take advantage of us at every turn.  And even if other parties don’t start out as such, life events can put people in default or desperate straits – and then “desperate people do desperate things” as they say.

Still, certain documents bear significant additional risk or have a history of resulting in litigation or economic calamity for the signer.

Here, we take a serious look at six transactional documents that frequently result in legal or financial problems:

• Personal guarantee for debts of another. Your daughter and son-in-law are buying a house, but have bad credit, or you are starting a business and need to guarantee the lease or franchise agreement to provide the fiscal backing for the undertaking.  A personal guarantee is fine and in some instances both called for and reasonable.  But think it through:

–>  Am I financially capable of fulfilling this guarantee if the underlying obligation falls into default?

–>  Would the other party accept a guarantee limited in time, amount or some other cutoff?  Or proceed with no guarantee?

–>  If there are multiple guarantors, would the lender be satisfied with me just paying my pro-rata share of the underlying debt?

–>  Is there some other way that the transaction can proceed without my guarantee?  Can someone offer security for the loan instead?

• Non-Compete agreements. More and more employers are asking new employees to sign non-compete agreements or agreements wherein the employee agrees not to solicit customers, employees or vendors of the enterprise.  Employers are entirely within their rights to demand such agreements (the question of whether they are enforceable is addressed here).  But should an employee agree to restrict his future earnings potential and career path based upon this job opportunity?  If you really think it through, many time the answer is “No thanks, I’ll take a pass.”
• Agreements with attorneys. We really hate to say this, but one of our clients was a seller under a land installment contract for the sale and purchase of real estate.  The buyer was an attorney.  After repeatedly falling into default, our client initiated a forfeiture action against the attorney.  He countered with a blistering series of arguments that were all untrue or frivolous.  Confronted with withering legal bills to prove their case, they quickly settled on relatively unfavorable terms.  Lesson learned.
• Businesses with 50/50 ownership. It seems to make sense: Two partners throwing in equal shares of cash and effort to start a business; they should own it 50/50.  And in decision-making, decisions are 50/50, meaning it requires the consent of both parties to move forward with anything.  However, after years of addressing business disputes, it has become clear that these ownership structures – with no one in charge and everyone’s cooperation required to make decisions – are the source of operational and legal gridlock, resulting in painful, expensive and endless litigation.  I have even seen very difficult dispute resolution between former (or soon-to-be-former) spouses in a 50/50 ownership structure.  Indeed, getting into business with any third party can be the source of conflict, monetary losses and litigation.
• Agreements you are not prepared to litigation to conclusion. If you think about it, in an instance in which you are investing time or money, you have two essential choices: Either be prepared to “eat” these investments by walking away or be prepared to litigate your claims to conclusion to defend your investment.  Is the person you are contracting with someone you are prepared to sue to enforce your rights?  Is the transaction structured and documented in such a way that you could prevail in that litigation? Will the cost of enforcing these agreements (or defending against a suit from the other party) of such magnitude that it will be worth litigating?
• Indemnity and “hold harmless” clauses in leases and other contracts. It’s easy to sign a 50-page legal document that satisfies the major business terms you have negotiated.  But what about the fine print?  Buried deeply within a lease, loan documents, or asset purchase contracts can be all sorts of warranties, indemnities, and “hold harmless” provisions.  It seems simple that a seller or borrower should stand behind his obligations, but do you really want to give an open-ended contractual indemnity or warranty in this specific instance?  It is, as is addressed here, a potential blank check, open-ended access to your checkbook.

We are not saying that you should never sign any of the foregoing instruments.  What we are saying is that experientially these undertakings result in much conflict, legal fees and emotional angst, and should be undertaken only with great caution.

 

An issue that manifests itself in any number of scenarios is the seemingly odd question: Can a seller contract to sell something that he does not own.

Somewhat surprisingly, the answer can be “yes.”

Hypothetical sale of stock

Let’s take a theoretical situation in which a seller promises to sell to a buyer 1,000 shares of the Procter & Gamble Corporation for $100 per share on the 2nd of January, 2018 (a date that as of this writing has not yet come), but the seller does not own any Procter and Gamble at the time of making such agreement.  Is that contract enforceable against the buyer?  As against the seller?

Sure.  If the seller does not own 1,000 shares of Procter & Gamble Corporation at the time of the contract, he had better make arrangements to get that stock under his ownership or to find a party who does own those shares who will fulfill the seller’s promises.

OK, but what about real property?

But come on, that’s perfectly fine as to a publicly-traded stock, but what about property that is entirely unique, not replaceable with “equal or like-kind” property, and under the control of a third party?

Well, the same principle applies.  If the seller is going to make a binding promise to sell that asset, and he wants to avoid being sued for breach of contract, he had better figure out how to either get title to the property before the promised closing date, or otherwise arrange for the cooperation of the property owner.

The basis for fraud?

The story is as old as the bridge.  A gullible tourist goes to New York City and a local shyster sells them the Brooklyn Bridge.  The seller does not own the bridge at the time of the contract, so it’s an enforceable contract, right?

Well, in that classic case, and in the case of other instances of fraud, selling property that the seller does not own could well be a badge of fraud.  If he knew at the time of contracting that he did not have title, and could not obtain title to the property in question, then the promise to sell that asset clearly would be fraud.

What if the seller claims that he thought he would be able to obtain the asset before the promised closing date, but was just unsuccessful.  Depending on his intentions, and the affirmative representations made by seller in conjunction with the sale, the failure of performance could be simple breach of contract, or it could be actionable fraud.

The peril for the seller

The peril for the seller who does not own the asset he promises to sell is that in order to avoid claims both for breach of contract and fraud, he will need to “pay the price” to get that asset into his name before the date of his performance.  In the case of Procter and Gamble Stock, if the price on the NYSE rises of $150 per share before the first of the year, he may just need to take a loss at $50 per share to assure fulfillment of his contractual obligations.  In the case of unique property owned or controlled by a third party, the seller may be in great peril as he will be under the mercy of that seller to “name his price” and terms to transfer the asset to the seller who has promised it any a date certain to a certain buyer.

Conclusion

This concept comes into play in various scenarios.  And the first instinct of parties — and attorneys — is to think you can’t promise to sell that which you don’t own.  A seller can.  But he should carefully consider the consequences of that decision.

What due diligence steps should a tenant undertake with respect to a commercial property before signing a lease?

Due diligence customary in a commercial real property purchase

Step back and consider for a moment that when we buy a piece of real property — for our home or for our business — it is prudent and customary by both the buyer and the lender to conduct due diligence investigations of the property:

• title,
• survey,
• physical inspections of the structure and mechanical systems,
• environmental, and
• checks of governmental records for notices of liens for violations, zoning, traffic engineering, etc.

The list can seem endless.

Isn’t a commercial lease low-risk for the tenant?

But when simply signing a lease for a term of years, why should the tenant be concerned with these things?  After all, his upfront cash may not be significant (relative to a purchase) and if things don’t work out, the tenant can just leave, right?

Well, sometimes that is the case.  The cost and time needed for due diligence would outweigh the risk the tenant is undertaking by simply signing the lease and moving in.  If so, then by all means, proceed.

But, wait, consider this!

But consider these countervailing factors:

• Tenant is spending significant monies on tenant buildout costs.
• Tenant is spending significant monies to move, including moving of furniture, fixtures and equipment, the installation of computer and phone systems, and printing of letterhead, envelopes and business cards.
• The disruption of your business arising from a move (and if things don’t work out a second move).
• The image you are building at the new location.  What will be lost if a second move is necessary?  Think of a restaurant or bar, retail store,  or bank branch.  The location is intricately tied to a business’s identity in the mind of the consumer.  It may not be easy to just pick up and move.

The reality is that if the tenant does not undertake the kinds of due diligence implemented for a property purchase, he could “lose” the property in many of the same ways as in a purchase — i.e., he could lose the out-of-pocket costs associated with the activities noted above and have the inconvenience and loss to reputation by relocating to a second location.

The types of risk potentially borne by a tenant that due diligence could avoid

Indeed, in certain circumstances the tenant could be obligated to pay rent throughout the lease term, but the property cannot be occupied for its intended purpose.  (Consider a situation where the property cannot be occupied but where the landlord does not appear technically in default of his obligations under the lease.)

• When signing a significant lease for property, a title examination, possibly a survey, and assuring lender buy-in of the lease can be absolutely critical.
• If, for example, the landlord has a mortgage against the property, and the mortgage is in default, that lender legally can extinguish a later–signed lease concurrent with the foreclosure.
  • To avoid this risk, one asks a landlord to execute a subordination, non–disturbance and attornment agreement agreeing that so long as tenant makes prompt and full payment of rent (to the landlord or– when in default of the mortgage — to the lender), the lender or a successor buyer will honor the lease.
  • A tenant’s policy of title insurance can be issued, transferring that risk to a title insurer.
• If the property does not comply with the regulatory requirements, zoning for example, of the jurisdiction in which the property is located, the tenant could be required to make extensive property modifications or to move.
• If the property has environmental problems, the cost of compliance — in an unlimited manner — could be transferred to the tenant.
• If the property has structural problems or the HVAC system is old and inoperable, depending on the lease language (shifting repairs and replacement of the HVAC to the tenant), the burden of fixing the problem could fall to the tenant.

Conclusion

Many times tenants will assume these risks in smaller leases.  Negotiating with the landlord’s lender and conducting full-scale inspections and other due diligence may just not be practical.

But a tenant in a commercial setting should carefully consider the risk-benefit to foregoing certain due diligence steps to prudently protect their investment in their new premises.

Call Isaac Heintz (513-943-6654) or Eli Krafte-Jacobs (513-797-2853) to address your commercial leasing questions.