ILNews

Business agreements provide roadmap for changes in family-run enterprises

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Focus

Integrate family into small business ownership and the potential for rivalry, high emotions and different agendas increases, especially as the business is passed from one generation to the next.

The dispute rocking the Holiday World & Splashin’ Safari theme park in southwest Indiana shows what can happen when a family fights over a business but, attorneys say, it is an extreme and uncommon situation. Usually members of a family or multiple shareholders in a closely held company work through their dispute outside the courtroom.

Still, Holiday World could become a teaching tool. Lawyers will be able to point to what happened there to convince clients of the need for legal agreements regarding ownership, division of duties, succession and procedures for cashing out.
 

brown-kimberly Frank

The goal of these agreements is to ensure the continued success of the business, said Shannon Frank, of Kahn Dees Donovan & Kahn LLP in Evansville. In addition, the legal documents can help a family get along in a business so they can also get along at the Thanksgiving table.

Ronald Katz, co-founding partner of Katz & Korin PC, described these agreements as roadmaps, detailing how to handle future events as well as dealing with here-and-now issues like compensation, liabilities and division of responsibilities. They also provide protection to the parties that have come together to start and grow a business operation.

A business that has multiple owners but fails to plan is really rolling the dice, Katz said.

Attorneys advise that shareholder agreements, operating agreements, buy/sell agreements, or succession agreements should be in place in any small business, whether owned by a family, an individual, or business partners. They should also be written early when everyone is cooperating.

The contents of the documents can vary from business to business, but a key topic they should address is what happens in the event of a death or disability of the primary owner, said David Barrett, partner at Faegre Baker Daniels LLP. These agreements can require consent from multiple stakeholders, rather than just the principle shareholder, before the business is sold or makes a major investment.


barrett-david Barrett

Barrett highlighted one succession agreement he worked on with a father who wanted to sell the business to his two children. The document included language outlining how the business would eventually be passed to the man’s grandchildren, who were as young as 10 years old at the time.

That agreement was unusual, Barrett said, since taking the business through different generations makes the process more difficult. Here, the father wanted his grandchildren to replicate the path his children took into the business. Namely, he wanted the third generation to work for other companies and gain relevant experience before joining the family business.

Typically, most agreements focus on one generation transferring the enterprise to another, Barrett said.

Frank said the agreements should consider the personalities involved and the skills each individual brings. But primarily, she said echoing Barrett, the documents should spell out what happens when an owner dies or retires.

Without a succession plan, the survivors could rely on the deceased owner’s will to determine the division of assets, Barrett said. Deciding to split the business evenly between the heirs can bring problems in subsequent years as the children of each heir become adults.

If one of the heirs’ children or grandchildren wants to cash out of the business, problems could arise in determining which heir is in control to make decisions regarding any sale of shares.

In some circumstances, decisions about succession and assets could be decided by lawyers, explained John Maley, partner at Barnes & Thornburg LLP. With no clear direction from the owner, outside parties could decide the fate of the business.

The family feud among the shareholders of Holiday World was ignited after the sudden death of the president and majority shareholder, William Koch. Although the agreement includes a succession plan and method for valuing the shares, Dan Koch, William’s brother, and Lori Koch, William’s widow, are battling over the exact dollar amount.

The fight has landed in the Indiana Court of Appeals. Attorneys representing the feuding family members argued before the judges Aug. 6. No decision has been rendered although, during oral arguments, Judge John Baker said the court can probably do nothing to help this fractured family.

None of the attorneys interviewed for this story had direct involvement in the Holiday World dispute nor any connection to the parties involved. However, all said the Holiday World situation is an outlier. Often if a dispute arises, families and shareholders will try to negotiate a solution between themselves. Pursuing litigation and turning to the courts is unattractive largely because of the costs involved.

“My experience, most of (these agreements) work, but another lawyer may have a very different experience,” Frank said.

Both Frank and Barrett said writing business agreements should be done deliberately. Hoosiers can set up their businesses through the secretary of state without any input from attorneys, but if a dispute erupts or one of the shareholders wants to divest, hammering out an agreement then can be difficult at best.

Katz said sometimes putting a business agreement together is not too difficult, while other times it can resemble trying to get the Arabs, Palestinians and Israelis to the peace table. Dissecting the issues and determining what people truly want to achieve is often the challenge.

The key to a good business agreement is communication, Barrett said. He advised business owners seek the advice of peers as well as professionals.

For lawyers, the goal is to write a document that is clear and leaves little room for interpretation, Frank said. Still, one must remember that different people can offer different interpretations of the meaning. And even when the parties have previously committed to an agreement, one could later argue that he or she does not agree to the terms, Katz adds. A party could contend the circumstances have changed or the relationship has been altered to the point where the agreement no longer governs.

Or, he added, the terms could be clear but the parties argue anyway. “We are not the ensurers of our clients being reasonable,” Katz said.•
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT