How to Break a 50/50 Owner Deadlock

We are migrating this blog to Facebook and our website.
Please visit www.facebook.com/senneysays  ~Or~ If you prefer to receive the latest blog by email, please send your email address to: jsenney@pselaw.com

  If you didn’t have the foresight to include tie-breaking mechanisms in your organizational documents, there are not a lot of options.   If both owners are reasonable, an accommodation acceptable to both can often be worked out.  Perhaps the owners can agree to appoint an impartial arbitrator or panel, and to be bound by the decision of the arbitrator or panel.  Or perhaps one owners agrees to buy out the other partner.  But on those occasions when a compromise or method of resolution cannot be worked out, a judicial dissolution may be necessary.  In a judicial dissolution, one of the owners petitions the court to divide the assets and business between the owners in some equitable manner.  But unless the business has multiple independent divisions that can be easily separated, such dissolution can have a disastrous effect on the business.
     It is inevitable that 50/50 owners will eventually disagree on the direction, the scope or the details of operating their business.  It is not possible to avoid every dispute.  But it is possible with carefully drafted organizational documents to make resolution of such disputes less costly and time-consuming.  There are many different types of tie-breaking mechanisms that can be adopted.  The partnership or operating agreement might provide for: (a) a third person to break ties; (b) a board with an odd number of directors to decide disputes; (c) arbitration to be handled by one or more arbitrators; (d) one of the owners to be the managing partner or member and have the final say; (e) flipping a coin to make the final decision; or (f) whatever else theowners can agree on.
 In the next blog we’ll talk about the fiduciary duty a majority owner owes to the minority owner, and the effect this has on splitting a business or terminating the minority owner.   If you would like assistance drafting tie-breaking mechanisms for a partnership, LLC or corporation, let me know.  Jsenney@pselaw.com or 937-223-1130.
     AND ONE MORE THING.  The definition of “accredited investor” was changed by the Frank-Dodd Act.  If you are trying to raise capital by selling shares to investors, you can avoid a lot of risk and make security law compliance easier, if you only sell to accredited investors.  One of the factors used to determine accredited investor status is net worth.  For this purpose, net worth excludes the value of the investor’s personal residence.  If you want to discuss raising capital by doing a private offering, please give me a call.  Jsenney@pselaw.com or 937-223-1130.