Archive for January, 2010

Homes for Sale Hit Expected End-of-Year Lull

Thursday, January 7th, 2010

The number of homes for sale nationwide was down 4.8 percent from November, according to data from ZipRealty Inc., which measured sales in the 27 major metropolitan areas where it does business.

The decline is typical, says research firm Zelman & Associations. Zelman says for the last 27 years nationwide listings have declined an average of 11 percent in December compared to November.

Zip’s figures don’t cover New York City where appraisal firm Miller Samuel Inc. says the number of co-ops and condos on the market in Manhattan in December was down 11 percent from November.

Source: The Wall Street Journal, James R. Hagerty (01/07/2010)

Supreme Court to take look at NFL’s merchandising agreement

Wednesday, January 6th, 2010

Next week, NFL officials will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to shield the league from certain antitrust lawsuits in a case that could be “very significant,” according to one local professor.
The league would like its 32 teams be allowed to act as a group in marketing their logos and trademarks. The court will hear arguments over the NFL’s exclusive agreement with adidas AG’s Reebok to sell hats, jerseys and all clothing emblazoned with team insignias.
David McGowan, a professor at the University of San Diego School of Law, doubts that a loss by the NFL would mean lower merchandising prices for consumers, however.
The case centers on a suit by American Needle Inc., which lost its right to sell team caps in 2000, when the league reached its accord with Reebok, a Massachusetts-based company later acquired by adidas. American Needle sued the NFL, its teams, their licensing arm and Reebok.
“It’s not clear that a ruling for American Needle translates to lower prices for consumers,” McGowan said. “It doesn’t mean American Needle gets to produce royalty-free items. It (the royalty) just goes to individual teams and not a single entity.”
McGowan said sports leagues bring up interesting questions when it comes to antitrust cases. While individual teams are separately owned and compete for division titles and playoff berths, they have to agree on certain terms, like the rules of the game and length of the playing field.
The question then becomes “are they acting cooperatively out of necessity,” McGowan said. “The court of appeals said with respect to licensing, the NFL is like a joint venture, so you treat it as one company.
“The easy way to look at it is: Do the actions of a particular team affect the brand value of other teams? If you decide that was a legitimate (argument), than you might say this is an area where coordination is needed.”
A broad ruling by the Supreme Court could insulate professional sports leagues from antitrust claims over video-game licenses, television rights, franchise relocation and even player salaries. Only Major League Baseball is exempt from antitrust laws now.
But McGowan doesn’t think the justices will issue such a broad ruling.
“I would be surprised if the court would categorically say that nothing the NFL ever does could violate antitrust laws,” he said. “You wouldn’t need to do that to solve the case.”
The NFL is aiming to stanch what it described in court papers as a “cascade of antitrust suits” against leagues in recent years, covering franchise locations, tournament schedules and team Web sites. In 1995, the Dallas Cowboys filed antitrust claims against the NFL after the league sought to stop team owner Jerry Jones from striking separate licensing deals. The two sides later settled.
The high court in recent years has restricted antitrust suits, as in 2006 when it ruled that joint ventures have broad power to set prices. The justices agreed to hear the latest case, a step that requires four of the court’s nine votes, against the advice of the Obama administration.
The NFL is asking the court to declare that franchises operate as a single entity when licensing trademark rights to apparel makers and other vendors. That would shield the league and its teams from suits under the federal antitrust law provision that bars conspiracies to restrain trade.
“A sports league produces a single entertainment product, a structured series of athletic competitions leading to a championship, that no member club could produce on its own,” the league argued. The league said trademark licensing helps promote that on-field product.
American Needle, based outside Chicago, says the league structure shouldn’t exempt teams from the usual rule that independently owned businesses face antitrust scrutiny when they act in concert. The company says the Reebok agreement led to price increases.
“The teams are separately owned and controlled profit-making enterprises,” the company argued. “They are actual and potential competitors in numerous areas, including the licensing of intellectual property.”
The court is expected to issue its ruling in July.
SDDT & Bloomberg News contributed to this report.

Governor proposes extension, expansion of home buyer tax credits

Wednesday, January 6th, 2010

During his State of the State address, Governor Schwarzenegger today announced his 2010 proposals for California. Included in the proposals is a recommendation to set aside $200 million for a new round of $10,000 state tax credits for first-time home buyers. The proposal expands upon the initial $10,000 state tax credit by including both new and existing homes. Last year’s tax credit applied only to new homes.
The tax credit could be combined with the recently extended and expanded federal tax credit for home buyers.

Information on Limited Liability Companies (LLC)

Wednesday, January 6th, 2010

The LLC is a creation of state law that combines limited liability protection for all of the equity owners without sacrificing the right of any owner to participate in the management of the enterprise. In California, LLCs are governed by the Beverly-Killea Limited Liability Company Act.

An LLC is a separate, legal entity formed by filing articles of organization with the Secretary of State. LLC statutes contemplate, but do not require, the adoption of an “operating agreement” or “regulations” to govern the operation and management of the LLC.

The members may reserve all management powers to themselves, in which case the members become mutual agents for one another in much the same way as a general partnership. Alternatively, members may opt for the decentralized management of the corporate form by delegating management powers to one or more appointed managers, and the managers will be solely responsible for contracting for debts or incurring liabilities on behalf of the entity.

Regardless of the management structure of the LLC, as a general matter, neither the members of an LLC nor its managers are liable for the debts or liabilities of the LLC. Assuming that all of the statutory requirements are satisfied, the LLC member’s liability to the LLC is generally limited to the extent of any unpaid capital contributions, including any capital required to be paid in the future on conditions stated in the articles of organization.

With respect to changes in ownership and continuity of existence, LLCs tend to be similar to general partnerships. In most cases, absent a contrary provision in the operating agreement, the LLC statutes provide that unless a proposed transfer has been unanimously approved by the other members, a transferee of a member’s interest cannot participate in the management of the LLC or become a member, although the transferee is entitled to receive the share of profits attributable to the transferred interest. As for the death, retirement, or other event of withdrawal of a member of an LLC, the LLC will be dissolved unless the statute provides for continuation of the business by all or some portion of the remaining members.

While the LLC was originally an alternative to multi-owner entities such as partnerships, recent changes in LLC and tax laws have led to widespread recognition of single-member LLC’s which provide limited liability for the owner-member and proprietorship tax treatment.

Raising Money For Your Business In A Troubled Economy – Another Option

Wednesday, January 6th, 2010

In a down economy, when raising capital to fund operations may seem like a Herculean challenge, convertible debt may present an attractive alternative to equity financing for early stage businesses and their prospective investors. Convertible debt financings may be applied in a variety of contexts and may avoid some of the cumbersome issues of early stage equity financings. Convertible debt financings may be an ideal investment vehicle for raising capital to fund startup ventures during the friends/family round of financing, especially in high-growth businesses where issues of valuation may prove particularly difficult. Operating businesses may also use convertible debt financing (sometimes called “bridge financings”) to satisfy working capital needs between rounds of capital stock offerings. In this context, they are often viewed as providing a “bridge of capital” between rounds of equity financings and subsequent (often preferred) equity financings. In a typical convertible debt financing, the borrower issues convertible promissory notes to investors for a limited term. These convertible promissory notes often mature within one to two years from the date of issuance of the note. Parties commonly negotiate alternative structures relating to the note’s maturity, for example, providing for acceleration of the note’s maturity upon consummation of an equity financing. Upon maturity or some other negotiated event, the note holder may have the option of calling the convertible promissory notes (with accrued but unpaid interest) or converting the convertible promissory notes into capital stock of the borrower based on a pre-determined formula. To compensate the investors for the investment risk they are assuming, convertible promissory notes are often secured against all of the assets of the borrower.

According to Louis R. Dienes and Ekong I. Udoekwere, convertible debt financings offer several advantages—and a few disadvantages—when measured against typical equity financings, including the following:

Cost-Effective and Efficient. Equity financings, particularly preferred equity financings, require the negotiation and documentation of a legally complex financial relationship between the business and its prospective investors, often including stock purchase agreements, amendments to charter documents setting forth preferred stock rights, shareholder agreements, voting agreements, registration rights agreements, and other documents unique to early stage equity financings. This translates into higher legal costs for businesses. On the other hand, convertible debt financings may eliminate much of the legal complexity and unwieldiness of equity financings, as well as the time required to negotiate and document such transactions. The cost-effective nature of convertible debt financings often appeals to both early-stage businesses with limited capital resources and better established businesses looking to contain costs and access capital sooner. Further, because convertible debt financings are relatively common financing structures, they will not create impediments to future preferred

Valuation. Equity financings necessitate a valuation of the business. Valuation of startup businesses is especially difficult because such ventures often have short operating histories, limited or no revenues, unproven technologies and other considerable risks, notwithstanding their potential for dramatic growth. Moreover, business valuation is a specialized and expensive service—a cost that early stage businesses may be reluctant, or unable, to bear. Frequently, founders with no experience in finance but great enthusiasm for their technologies assign a value to their businesses that are significantly greater than the “market rate” and raise seed capital at that value from family and friends. What often happens next is that the equity positions of the founders (and their families and friends) are appreciably diluted by subsequent rounds of equity financing with more sophisticated investors. The latter often reassess and write down the founders’ arbitrary and inflated valuation of the business. By contrast, in a convertible debt financing, the business and its prospective investors avoid valuation pitfalls: the business gets the capital it needs, and the issue of valuation is postponed until the business is further along in its growth and both better equipped to afford an appraisal and easier to appraise reliably. Moreover, convertible debt financings tend to put the founders and the note holders on the same side of the table in determining the business’s valuation with later rounds of equity investors.

For more information on this article or raising money for your business, please contact us by telephone at (619) 400-4942, via email at dan@kehrlaw.com, or via text message at (619) 823-8230.