Le operazioni di acquisizione (M&A) in Italia: share deal o asset deal

25 Settembre 2019

  • Italia
  • Diritto societario
  • M&A
  • Private equity

This week the Interim Injunction Judge of the Netherlands Commercial Court ruled in summary proceedings, following a video hearing, in a case on a EUR 169 million transaction where the plaintiff argued that the final transaction had been concluded and the defendant should proceed with the deal.

This in an – intended – transaction where the letter of intent stipulates that a EUR 30 million break fee is due when no final agreement is signed.

In addition to ruling on this question of construction of an agreement under Dutch law, the judge also had to rule on the break fee if no agreement was concluded and whether it should be amended or reduced because of the current Coronavirus / Covid-19 crisis.

English Language proceedings in a Dutch state court, the Netherlands Commercial Court (NCC)

The case is not just interesting because of the way contract formation is construed under Dutch law and application of concepts of force majeure, unforeseen circumstances and amendment of agreements under the concepts of reasonableness and fairness as well as mitigation of contractual penalties, but also interesting because it was ruled on by a judge of the English language chamber of the Netherlands Commercial Court (NCC).

This new (2019) Dutch state court offers a relatively fast and cost-effective alternative for international commercial litigation, and in particular arbitration, in a neutral jurisdiction with professional judges selected for both their experience in international disputes and their command of English.

The dispute regarding the construction of an M&A agreement under Dutch law in an international setting

The facts are straightforward. Parties (located in New York, USA and the Netherlands) dispute whether final agreement on the EUR 169 million transaction has been reached but do agree a break fee of €30 million in case of non-signature of the final agreement was agreed. However, in addition to claiming there is no final agreement, the defendant also argues that the break fee – due when there is no final agreement – should be reduced or changed due to the coronavirus crisis.

As to contract formation it must be noted that Dutch law allows broad leeway on how to communicate what may or may not be an offer or acceptance. The standard is what a reasonable person in the same circumstances would have understood their communications to mean.  Here, the critical fact is that the defendant did not sign the so-called “Transaction Agreement”. The letter of intent’s binary mechanism (either execute and deliver the paperwork for the Transaction Agreement by the agreed date or pay a EUR 30 million fee) may not have been an absolute requirement for contract formation (under Dutch law) but has significant evidentiary weight. In M&A practice – also under Dutch law – with which these parties are thoroughly familiar with, this sets a very high bar for  concluding a contract was agreed other than by explicit written agreement. So, parties may generally comfortably rely on what they have agreed on in writing with the assistance of their advisors.

The communications relied on by claimant in this case did not clear the very high bar to assume that despite the mechanism of the letter of intent and the lack of a signed Transaction Agreement there still was a binding agreement. In particular attributing the other party’s advisers’ statements and/or conduct to the contracting party they represent did not work for the claimant in this case as per the verdict nothing suggested that the advisers would be handling everything, including entering into the agreement.

Court order for actual performance of a – deemed – agreement on an M&A deal?

The Interim Injunction Judge finds that there is not a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits so as to justify an interim measure ordering the defendant to actually perform its obligations under the disputed Transaction Agreement (payment of EUR 169 million and take the claimant’s 50% stake in an equestrian show-jumping business).

Enforcement of the break fee despite “Coronavirus”?

Failing the conclusion of an agreement, there was still another question to answer as the letter of intent mechanism re the break fee as such was not disputed. Should the Court enforce the full EUR 30 million fee in the current COVID-19 circumstances? Or should the fee’s effects be modified, mitigated or reduced in some way, or  the fee agreement should even be dissolved?

Unforeseen circumstances, reasonableness and fairness

The Interim Injunction Judge rules that the coronavirus crisis may be an unforeseen circumstance, but it is not of such a nature that, according to standards of reasonableness and fairness, the plaintiff cannot expect the break fee obligation to remain unchanged. The purpose of the break fee is to encourage parties to enter into the transaction and attribute / share risks between them. As such the fee limits the exposure of the parties. Payment of the fee is a quick way out of the obligation to pay the purchase price of EUR 169 million and the risks of keeping the target company financially afloat. If financially the coronavirus crisis turns out less disastrous than expected, the fee of EUR 30 million may seem high, but that is what the parties already considered reasonable when they waived their right to invoke the unreasonableness of the fee. The claim for payment of the EUR 30 million break fee is therefore upheld by the Interim Injunction Judge.

Applicable law and the actual practice of it by the courts

The relevant three articles are in this case articles 6:94, 6:248 and 6:258 of the Dutch Civil Code. They relate to the mitigation of contractual penalties, unforeseen circumstances and amendment of the agreement under the tenets of reasonableness and fairness. Under Dutch law the courts must with all three exercise caution. Contracts must generally be enforced as agreed. The parties’ autonomy is deemed paramount and the courts’ attitude is deferential. All three articles use language stating, essentially, that interference by the courts in the contract’s operation is allowed only to avoid an “unacceptable” impact, as assessed under standards of reasonableness and fairness.

There is at this moment of course no well- established case law on COVID-19. However, commentators have provided guidance that is very helpful to think through the issues. Recently a “share the pain” approach has been advocated by a renowned law Professor, Tjittes, who focuses on preserving the parties’ contractual equilibrium in the current circumstances. This is, in the Court’s analysis, the right way to look at the agreement here. There is no evidence in the record suggesting that the parties contemplated or discussed the full and exceptional impact of the COVID-19 crisis. The crisis may or may not be unprovided for.  However, the court rules in the current case there is no need to rule on this issue. Even if the crisis is unprovided for, there is no support in the record for the proposition that the crisis makes it unacceptable for the claimant to demand strict performance by the defendant. The reasons are straightforward.

The break fee allocates risk and expresses commitment and caps exposure. The harm to the business may be substantial and structural, or it may be short-term and minimal. Either way, the best “share the pain” solution, to preserve the contractual equilibrium in the agreement, is for the defendant to pay the fee as written in the letter of intent. This allocates a defined risk to one party, and actual or potential risks to the other party. Reducing the break fee in any business downturn, the fee’s express purpose – comfort and confidence to get the deal done – would not be accomplished and be derived in precisely the circumstances in which it should be robust. As a result, the Court therefore orders to pay the full EUR 30 million fee. So the break fee stipulation works under the circumstances without mitigation because of the Corona outbreak.

The Netherlands Commercial Court, continued

As already indicated above, the case is interesting because the verdict has been rendered by a Dutch state court in English and the proceedings where also in English. Not because of a special privilege granted in a specific case but based on an agreement between parties with a proper choice of forum clause for this court. In addition to the benefit to of having an English forum without mandatorily relying on either arbitration or choosing an anglophone court, it also has the benefit of it being a state court with the application of the regular Dutch civil procedure law, which is well known by it’s practitioners and reduces the risk of surprises of a procedural nature.  As it is as such also a “normal” state court, there is the right to appeal and particularly effective under Dutch law access to expedited proceeding as was also the case in the example referred to above. This means a regular procedure with full application of all evidentiary rules may still follow, overturning or confirming this preliminary verdict in summary proceedings.

Novel technology in proceedings

Another first or at least a novel application is that all submissions were made in eNCC, a document upload procedure for the NCC. Where the introduction of electronic communication and litigation in the Dutch court system has failed spectacularly, the innovations are now all following in quick order and quite effective. As a consequence of the Coronavirus outbreak several steps have been quickly tried in practice and thereafter formally set up. At present this – finally – includes a secure email-correspondence system between attorneys and the courts.

And, also by special order of the Court in this present case, given the current COVID-19 restrictions the matter was dealt with at a public videoconference hearing on 22 April 2020 and the case was set for judgment on 29 April 2020 and published on 30 April 2020.

Even though it is a novel application, it is highly likely that similar arrangements will continue even after expiry of current emergency measures. In several Dutch courts videoconference hearings are applied on a voluntary basis and is expected that the arrangements will be formalized.

Eligibility of cases for the Netherlands Commercial Court

Of more general interest are the requirements for matters that may be submitted to NCC:

  • the Amsterdam District Court or Amsterdam Court of Appeal has jurisdiction
  • the parties have expressly agreed in writing that proceedings will be in English before the NCC (the ‘NCC agreement’)
  • the action is a civil or commercial matter within the parties’ autonomy
  • the matter concerns an international dispute.

The NCC agreement can be recorded in a clause, either before or after the dispute arises. The Court even recommends specific wording:

“All disputes arising out of or in connection with this agreement will be resolved by the Amsterdam District Court following proceedings in English before the Chamber for International Commercial Matters (“Netherlands Commercial Court” or “NCC District Court”), to the exclusion of the jurisdiction of any other courts. An action for interim measures, including protective measures, available under Dutch law may be brought in the NCC’s Court in Summary Proceedings (CSP) in proceedings in English. Any appeals against NCC or CSP judgments will be submitted to the Amsterdam Court of Appeal’s Chamber for International Commercial Matters (“Netherlands Commercial Court of Appeal” or “NCCA”).”

The phrase “to the exclusion of the jurisdiction of any other courts” is included in light of the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements. It is not mandatory to include it of course and parties may decide not to exclude the jurisdiction of other courts or make other arrangements they consider appropriate. The only requirement being that such arrangements comply with the rules of jurisdiction and contract. Please note that choice of court agreements are exclusive unless the parties have “expressly provided” or “agreed” otherwise (as per the Hague Convention and Recast Brussels I Regulation).

Parties in a pending case before another Dutch court or chamber may request that their case be referred to NCC District Court or NCC Court of Appeal. One of the requirements is to agree on a clause that takes the case to the NCC and makes English the language of the proceedings. The NCC recommends using this language:

We hereby agree that all disputes in connection with the case [name parties], which is currently pending at the *** District Court (case number ***), will be resolved by the Amsterdam District Court following proceedings in English before the Chamber for International Commercial Matters (“Netherlands Commercial Court” or ”NCC District Court). Any action for interim measures, including protective measures, available under Dutch law will be brought in the NCC’s Court in Summary Proceedings (CSP) in proceedings in English. Any appeals against NCC or CSP judgments will be submitted to the Amsterdam Court of Appeal’s Chamber for International Commercial Matters (“Netherlands Commercial Court of Appeal” or “NCC Court of Appeal”).

To request a referral, a motion must be made before the other chamber or court where the action is pending, stating the request and contesting jurisdiction (if the case is not in Amsterdam) on the basis of a choice-of-court agreement (see before).

Additional arrangements in the proceedings before the Netherlands Commercial Court

Before or during the proceedings, parties can also agree special arrangements in a customized NCC clause or in another appropriate manner. Such arrangements may include matters such as the following:

  • the law applicable to the substantive dispute
  • the appointment of a court reporter for preparing records of hearings and the costs of preparing those records
  • an agreement on evidence that departs from the general rules
  • the disclosure of confidential documents
  • the submission of a written witness statement prior to the witness examination
  • the manner of taking witness testimony
  • the costs of the proceedings.

Visiting lawyers and typical course of the procedure

All acts of process are in principle carried out by a member of the Dutch Bar. Member of the Bar in an EU or EEA Member State or Switzerland may work in accordance with Article 16e of the Advocates Act (in conjunction with a member of the Dutch Bar). Other visiting lawyers may be allowed to speak at any hearing.

The proceedings will typically follow the below steps:

  • Submitting the initiating document by the plaintiff (summons or request as per Dutch law)
  • Assigned to three judges and a senior law clerk.
  • The defendant submits its defence statement.
  • Case management conference or motion hearing (e.g. also in respect of preliminary issues such as competence, applicable law etc.) where parties may present their arguments.
  • Judgment on motions: the court rules on the motions. Testimony, expert appointment, either at this stage or earlier or later.
  • The court may allow the parties to submit further written statements.
  • Hearing: the court interviews the parties and allows them to present their arguments. The court may enquire whether the dispute could be resolved amicably and, where appropriate, assist the parties in a settlement process. If appropriate, the court may discuss with the parties whether it would be advisable to submit part or all of the dispute to a mediator. At the end of the hearing, the court will discuss with the parties what the next steps should be.
  • Verdict: this may be a final judgment on the claims or an interim judgment ordering one or more parties to produce evidence, allowing the parties to submit written submissions on certain aspects of the case, appointing one or more experts or taking other steps.

Continuous updates, online resources Netherlands Commercial Court

As a final note the English language website of the Netherlands Commercial Court provides ample information on procedure and practical issues and is updated with a high frequence. Under current circumstance even at a higher pace. In particular for practitioners it’s recommended to regularly consult the website. https://www.rechtspraak.nl/English/NCC/Pages/default.aspx

Le operazioni di acquisizione (M&A) in Italia, nella maggior parte dei casi, vengono realizzate attraverso acquisto di partecipazioni (‘share deal’) o di azienda o ramo d’azienda (‘asset deal’). Per ragioni principalmente fiscali sono più frequenti gli share deal rispetto agli asset deal, nonostante l’asset deal consenta una migliore limitazione dei rischi per l’acquirente. Vedremo le principali differenze tra share deal e asset deal in termini di rischi e di rapporti tra venditore e acquirente.

Preferenza per operazioni di M&A mediante acquisto di partecipazioni (‘share deal’) rispetto ad acquisto di azienda o ramo d’azienda (‘asset deal’) nel mercato italiano

In Italia, le operazione di acquisizione (M&A) vengono realizzate, nella maggior parte dei casi, attraverso acquisto di partecipazioni (‘share deal’) o di azienda o ramo d’azienda (‘asset deal’). Altre modalità, come la fusione, sono meno frequenti.

Con l’acquisto di quote o azioni della società acquisita (‘share deal’) l’acquirente acquisisce, indirettamente, l’intero patrimonio aziendale (attività, passività, rapporti) e quindi si fa carico di tutti i rischi relativi alla precedente gestione della società.

Con l’acquisto dell’azienda o di un ramo d’azienda (‘asset deal’) l’acquirente acquisisce un insieme di beni e rapporti organizzati per l’esercizio dell’impresa (immobili, impianti, dipendenti, contratti, crediti, debiti, ecc.). Il vantaggio dell’asset deal risiede nella possibilità per le parti di definire il perimetro del trasferimento e, quindi, per l’acquirente, di limitare i rischi legali dell’operazione.

Nonostante questo vantaggio, la maggior parte delle operazioni di acquisizione in Italia avviene attraverso acquisto di partecipazioni. Nel 2018 gli acquisti di partecipazioni (azioni o quote) sono state circa 78.400, mentre le cessioni di azienda sono state circa 35.900 (fonte: www.notariato.it/it/news/dati-statistici-notarili-anno-2018). E va osservato che il dato delle cessioni d’azienda comprende anche le aziende di piccole o piccolissime dimensioni esercitate da imprenditori individuali, per le quali l’alternativa dello share deal (pur praticabile, attraverso il conferimento dell’azienda in una newco e la cessione delle partecipazioni nella newco) non è percorribile in concreto per ragioni di costo.

Costi fiscali delle operazioni di acquisizione (M&A) in Italia

La principale ragione della preferenza per l’acquisto di partecipazione (‘share deal’) rispetto all’acquisto di azienda (‘asset deal’) risiede nei costi fiscali dell’operazione. Vediamo quali sono, in linea generale.

Nell’acquisto di partecipazioni, le imposte dirette a carico del venditore vengono calcolate sulla plusvalenza, secondo le seguenti percentuali:

  • se il venditore è una società di capitali (s.p.a.; s.r.l.; s.a.p.a.) l’aliquota è del 24% della plusvalenza. Ma, a determinate condizioni, si applica il regime della c.d. PEX (participation exemption) con applicazione dell’aliquota del 24% solo sul 5% della plusvalenza.
  • Se il venditore è una persona fisica l’aliquota sulla plusvalenza è del 26%.
  • Se il venditore è una società di persone (s.s.; s.n.c..; s.a.s.) la plusvalenza è integralmente imponibile, tuttavia al ricorrere di determinate condizioni, l’imponibilità è limitata al 60% dell’ammontare della plusvalenza. In entrambi i casi l’aliquota applicabile è quella marginale riferita a ciascun socio a cui il reddito viene imputato per trasparenza.

Nell’acquisto di partecipazioni si applica l’imposta di registro, normalmente a carico dell’acquirente, di euro 200.

Anche nell’acquisto di azienda, le imposte dirette a carico del venditore vengono calcolate sulla plusvalenza. Se il venditore è una società di capitali, l’aliquota è del 24% della plusvalenza. Se il venditore è una società di persone (con soci persone fisiche) o un imprenditore individuale, le aliquote dipendono dal reddito del venditore.

Nell’acquisto di azienda si applicano le imposte indirette, normalmente a carico dell’acquirente, calcolate sulla parte del prezzo attribuibile ai singoli beni trasferiti. Il prezzo è il risultato delle attività trasferite detratte le passività trasferite. Le percentuali sono diverse a seconda del tipo di beni. In generale:

  • ai beni mobili si applica una imposta di registro del 3%;
  • all’avviamento si applica una imposta di registro del 3%;
  • ai fabbricati si applica una imposta di registro del 9% (e imposte ipotecarie e catastali in misura fissa di euro 50 ciascuna);
  • ai terreni si applica una imposta di registro tra il 9 e il 12% (a seconda dell’acquirente) e imposte ipotecarie e catastali in misura fissa di euro 50 ciascuna.

Nel caso in cui l’azienda sia composta da beni soggetti ad aliquote diverse e le parti abbiano pattuito un corrispettivo unico, senza distinzione in merito al valore attribuibile ai singoli beni, l’imposta deve calcolarsi applicando all’unico corrispettivo pattuito l’aliquota più elevata.

Va sottolineato che l’Agenzia delle Entrate può sottoporre ad accertamento il valore attribuito dalle parti ai beni immobili e all’avviamento, con conseguente rischio di applicazione di maggiori imposte.

Share deal e asset deal: rischi e responsabilità verso i terzi

Nell’acquisto di quote o azioni (‘share deal’) l’acquirente si fa carico, indirettamente, di tutti i rischi relativi alla precedente gestione della società.

Nell’acquisto dell’azienda o di un ramo d’azienda (‘asset deal’), invece, le parti possono decidere il perimetro del trasferimento (quali beni e rapporti) così stabilendo, nei rapporti tra loro, i rischi che l’acquirente assume.

Vi sono però alcune norme, che le parti non possono derogare, relative ai rapporti con i terzi, che influiscono significativamente sui rischi per il venditore e l’acquirente e quindi sulla negoziazione dell’accordo tra le parti. Le principali sono le seguenti.

  • Lavoratori dipendenti: il rapporto di lavoro continua con l’acquirente dell’azienda. Il venditore e l’acquirente sono obbligati in solido per tutti i crediti del lavoratore al momento del trasferimento (art. 2112 c.c.).
  • Debiti: il venditore è obbligato al pagamento di tutti i debiti sino alla data del trasferimento. L’acquirente è obbligato per i debiti che risultano dai libri contabili (art. 2560 c.c.).
  • Debiti e responsabilità fiscali: il venditore è obbligato al pagamento di debiti, imposte e sanzioni fiscali relative al periodo sino alla data del trasferimento.
    L’acquirente, in aggiunta all’obbligo relativo ai debiti fiscali che risultano dai libri contabili (art. 2560 c.c.), è responsabile per le imposte e sanzioni, anche se non risultano dai libri contabili, con i seguenti limiti (art. 14 D.lgs. 472/1997):
  • beneficio della preventiva escussione del venditore;
  • fino al valore dell’azienda o del ramo d’azienda acquistato;
  • per le imposte e sanzioni non ancora contestate, la responsabilità riguarda solo quelle relative all’anno della vendita dell’azienda e ai due precedenti; per le imposte e sanzioni relative al periodo anteriore ai due anni precedenti la vendita dell’azienda, la responsabilità riguarda solo quelle contestate entro tale periodo;
  • nei limiti del debito risultante alla data di trasferimento dagli atti degli uffici dell’amministrazione finanziaria. L’Agenzia delle Entrate è tenuta a rilasciare un certificato sull’esistenza di contestazioni in corso e sui debiti. Il certificato negativo, o non rilasciato entro 40 giorni dalla richiesta, libera l’acquirente da responsabilità.
  • Contratti: le parti possono scegliere quali contratti trasferire. Rispetto ai contratti trasferiti, l’acquirente subentra, anche senza il consenso del terzo contraente, nei contratti per l’esercizio dell’azienda che non hanno carattere personale (sono a carattere personale quelli che prevedono da parte del venditore una prestazione oggettivamente infungibile o soggettivamente infungibile). Inoltre il terzo contraente può recedere dal contratto entro tre mesi, se sussiste una giusta causa (ad esempio se l’acquirente non garantisce, per la propria situazione patrimoniale o per capacità tecniche, di poter adempiere al contratto) (art. 2558 c.c.).

Alcuni strumenti per affrontare i rischi

Per affrontare i rischi derivanti dalle responsabilità verso i terzi e i rischi generali connessi all’acquisizione, vi sono diversi strumenti negoziali e contrattuali che possono essere utilizzati. Vediamone alcuni.

Nelle operazioni di acquisto dell’azienda o di rami d’azienda (‘asset deal’):

  • Lavoratori dipendenti: è possibile concordare con il lavoratore modifiche alle condizioni contrattuali e rinunce alla responsabilità solidale dell’acquirente e del venditore (ex art. 2112 c.c.). L’accordo con i lavoratore per essere valido deve essere concluso in sede ‘protetta’ (ad esempio: con l’assistenza delle organizzazioni sindacali).
  • Debiti:
  • trasferire all’acquirente i debiti riducendo il prezzo in misura corrispondente; la riduzione del prezzo comporta, inoltre, una minor costo fiscale dell’operazione. In caso di trasferimento dei debiti, per tutelare il venditore si può ottenere dal creditore una dichiarazione di liberazione del venditore dalla responsabilità ex art. 2560 c.c.; oppure si può prevedere che il pagamento del debito da parte dell’acquirente avvenga contestualmente al trasferimento dell’azienda (‘closing’).
  • Per i debiti non trasferiti all’acquirente, ottenere dal creditore una dichiarazione di liberazione dell’acquirente dalla responsabilità ex art. 2560 c.c.
  • Per i debiti per i quali non sia possibile ottenere la dichiarazione di liberazione da parte del creditore, pattuire forme di garanzia a favore del venditore (per i debiti trasferiti) o a favore dell’acquirente (per i debiti non trasferiti), quali ad esempio la dilazione del pagamento (a favore dell’acquirente) di parte del prezzo, il deposito fiduciario (‘escrow’) di parte del prezzo, fideiussioni bancarie o da parte dei soci.
  • Debiti e responsabilità fiscali:
  • ottenere dall’Agenzia delle Entrate il certificato ex art. 14 D.lgs. 472/1997 sui debiti e le contestazioni in corso;
  • trasferire all’acquirente i debiti riducendo il prezzo in misura corrispondente;
  • pattuire le forme di garanzia a favore del venditore (per i debiti trasferiti) e a favore dell’acquirente (per i debiti non trasferiti o per le contestazioni che non sono ancora debiti), quali ad esempio quelle sopra esposte per i debiti in generale.
  • Contratti: per quelli che vengono trasferiti:
  • verificare che le prestazioni a carico del venditore sino alla data del trasferimento siano state regolarmente adempiute, per evitare il rischio di contestazioni del terzo contraente che possono bloccare l’esecuzione del contratto;
  • almeno per i contratti più importanti (e salvo ragioni di riservatezza), cercare di ottenere conferma dal terzo contraente del benestare al trasferimento del contratto.

Nelle operazioni di acquisto di partecipazioni (‘share deal’), in cui l’acquirente si fa carico, indirettamente, di tutti i rischi relativi alla precedente gestione della società, alcuni strumenti sono:

  • Due diligence. Svolgere una approfondita due diligence legale, fiscale e contabile sulla società, per valutare preventivamente i rischi e gestirli nella trattativa e nei contratti.
  • Dichiarazioni e garanzie (‘R&W’) e indennizzo. Prevedere nel contratto di acquisizione (‘share purchase agreement’) un set dettagliato di dichiarazioni e garanzie – e obblighi di indennizzo in caso di non conformità – a carico del venditore relativamente alla situazione della società (‘business warranties’: bilancio; situazione patrimoniale di riferimento; contratti; contenzioso; rispetto della normativa ambientale; autorizzazioni per lo svolgimento dell’attività; debiti; crediti ecc.). La trattativa sulle dichiarazioni e garanzie normalmente recepisce, gestendoli, gli esiti della due diligence (ad esempio: viene escluso dalle dichiarazioni e garanzie e dall’indennizzo un contenzioso emerso in due diligence, del quale le parti tengono conto nella definizione del prezzo). La pattuizione di dichiarazioni e garanzie sulla situazione della società (‘business warranties’) e dell’obbligo di indennizzo sono necessari negli share deal in Italia, in quanto in mancanza di tali clausole l’acquirente non può ottenere dal venditore (salvo situazioni estreme e molto rare) un risarcimento o indennizzo in caso la situazione della società sia diversa da quella considerata al momento dell’acquisto (così ad esempio: Cass. Civ. 16963/2014).
  • Garanzie per l’acquirente. Strumenti per garantire all’acquirente l’effettiva possibilità di ottenere l’indennizzo (o parte dell’indennizzo) in caso di non conformità delle dichiarazioni e garanzie. Tra queste: (a) la dilazione del pagamento di parte del prezzo; (b) il versamento di parte del prezzo in un deposito fiduciario (‘escrow’) per la durata delle dichiarazioni e garanzie e, in caso di contestazioni, fino a che la contestazione non è definita; (c) fideiussione bancaria;; (d) polizza W&I, contratto di assicurazione che copre il rischio dell’acquirente in caso di violazioni di dichiarazioni e garanzie, sino ad un importo massimo (ed esclusi alcuni rischi).

Altri fattori che incidono sulla scelta tra share deal e asset deal

Naturalmente la scelta di realizzare un’operazione di acquisizione in Italia mediante share deal o asset deal, dipende anche da altri fattori oltre a quello dei costi fiscali dell’operazione. Eccone alcuni.

  • Acquisto di parte del business. Si sceglie l’asset deal, quando l’operazione non riguarda l’acquisto dell’intera azienda del venditore ma solo una sua parte (un ramo d’azienda).
  • Situazione della società problematica. Si sceglie l’asset deal quando la situazione della società target è così problematica che l’acquirente non è disponibile ad assumere tutti i rischi derivanti dalla precedente gestione, ma solo parte di essi.
  • Mantenimento di un ruolo da parte del venditore. Si sceglie lo share deal quando si vuole conservare al venditore un ruolo nella società acquisita. In questo caso, oltre ad un ruolo nel management, è frequente il mantenimento da parte del venditore di una partecipazione di minoranza, con clausole di exit (diritti di put e call) decorso un certo periodo di tempo. Clausole che, spesso, legano il prezzo ai risultati futuri e, quindi, nell’interesse dell’acquirente incentivano il venditore nel ruolo manageriale e, nell’interesse del venditore, valorizzano prospettive reddituali non concretizzate al momento dell’acquisto.

Dal 1° agosto 2021 non sarà più necessario, per la costituzione di una SRL – società a responsabilità limitata, recarsi dal notaio: la procedura potrà anche essere realizzata completamente on line, salvo casi eccezionali. Ciò è previsto dalla Direttiva U.E. 2019/1151, che impone agli stati di adeguarsi entro due anni. Vediamo cosa prevede la Direttiva.

Come si costituisce una S.r.l. in Italia oggi

In Italia, per costituire una società e, in particolare, una società a responsabilità limitata, è sempre necessario rivolgersi ad un notaio.

Ciò vale anche per la c.d. «SRL semplificata», introdotta nel 2012 dal Decreto Legge «Liberalizzazioni». In questo caso, infatti, la legge prevede che, a fronte dell’utilizzo di uno statuto standard non modificabile, non vi siano oneri notarili da sostenere. Tuttavia, resta sempre necessario comparire avanti ad un notaio.

Cosa cambierà da agosto 2021 con il recepimento della Direttiva U.E. 2019/1151

Le cose dovranno cambiare con l’entrata in vigore della Direttiva U.E. 2019/1151, che modifica la Direttiva U.E. 2017/1132 in tema di uso di strumenti e processi digitali nel diritto societario.

Entro il 1° agosto 2021, gli Stati membri dovranno aggiornare le procedure per la costituzione di una società in modo da garantire un doppio binario.

Dovrà, cioè, essere possibile costituire una società sia con il metodo tradizionale, ossia rivolgendosi ad un notaio, oppure con procedure esclusivamente on line.

Due eccezioni

  • l’art. 13-ter, par. 4, dispone che «ove sia giustificato da motivi di interesse pubblico per impedire l’usurpazione o l’alterazione di identità, gli Stati membri possono adottare misure che potrebbero richiedere la presenza fisica ai fini della verifica dell’identità del richiedente dinanzi a un’autorità o a qualsiasi persona od organismo incaricati… Gli Stati membri provvedono affinché la presenza fisica del richiedente possa essere richiesta solo se vi sono motivi di sospettare una falsificazione dell’identità e garantiscono che qualsiasi altra fase della procedura possa essere completata online»;
  • l’art. 13-octies, co. 8, dispone che «ove giustificato da motivi di interesse pubblici a garantire il rispetto delle norme sulla capacità giuridica e sull’autorità dei richiedenti di rappresentare una società, qualsiasi autorità o qualsiasi persona od organismo incaricato… può chiedere la presenza fisica del richiedente… Gli Stati membri garantiscono che tutte le altre fasi della procedura possano essere comunque completate on line».

Gli Stati membri dovranno mettere a disposizione i modelli necessari per la costituzione delle società a responsabilità limitata «in almeno una lingua ufficiale dell’Unione ampiamente compresa dal maggior numero possibile di utenti transfrontalieri».

Rischi

La direttiva rappresenta, indubbiamente, un interessante tentativo di semplificazione, il cui successo dipenderà, tuttavia, da come verrà recepita dai singoli Stati membri.

I rischi principali sono almeno due:

  1. il primo, facilmente intuibile, è che gli Stati membri rendano troppo oneroso l’accertamento dell’identità od il potere rappresentativo dei richiedenti, rendendo più semplice, in definitiva, il tradizionale ricorso ad un notaio;
  2. il secondo è che le procedure on line siano poco chiare o comprensibili, specie agli utenti stranieri. In tal senso, non appare sufficiente che i modelli siano resi disponibili, ma sarà necessario che le procedure online siano orientate alla maggiore semplificazione possibile e che i modelli siano tutti disponibili almeno in lingua inglese.

Infine, è evidente che la digitalizzazione del procedimento di costituzione di una società non elimina l’opportunità di rivolgersi ad un professionista con il compito di consigliare il cliente nelle scelte che sarà necessario fare, ad esempio in materia di corporate governance.

A legal due diligence of a Brazilian target company should analyze the existence and the content of Agency Agreements, including values paid to the agent and the nature of such payments and the factual situation of the target’s agents, in order to evaluate potential contingencies.

One usual suspect in legal due diligences of Brazilian target companies in M&A transactions that should not be overlooked is the existence of agency agreements, due to:

  • the obligation to indemnify the agent stipulated by law: at least 1/12th of all commissions paid throughout the entire term of the agency agreement; and
  • the risks for the agency being disregarded and considered as an employment relationship, subjecting the principal to compensate the agent as an employee with all rights, benefits, taxes and social contributions.

This should be considered for evaluation of potential contingencies and the impacts on the valuation of the target.

No doubt that agents can be an important component of the sales force of the business and can be strategic for the activity of the principal, in view of a certain independence and for not increasing the payroll of a company.

On the other hand, under Brazilian laws, the protective nature of the agency demands the principal a considerable level of attention.

Indemnification

Brazilian Federal Law No. 4,886/65 as amended – the Brazilian Agency Law – determines that the agent is entitled to, at the termination of an agency agreement, receive an indemnification of 1/12th calculated over all the commissions paid throughout the duration of the entire period of the agency agreement.

The Brazilian Agency Law stipulates that if the parties sign a new contract within 6 months after the expiration of the previous, the relation between agent and principal shall be deemed as the same relationship and thus, the duration to calculate the indemnification shall encompass the entire period (past and subsequent contract).

Termination by the agent

The Brazilian Agency Law also stipulates situations that agent could terminate the contract and still be entitled to receive the 1/12th indemnification:

  • reduction of the activities in disagreement with the contractual stipulation
  • breach of exclusivity (territory and/or products), if so stipulated in the agreement
  • determination of prices that makes the agency unfeasible and
  • default on payment of the commissions
  • force majeure

Termination without cause

Termination without cause can be done, upon payment to agent of the indemnification and with a previous notice of at least 30 days, in which situation the agent shall receive the payment of 1/3 of the remuneration received during the previous 90 days prior to the termination.

Can principal avoid the indemnification?

The only cases where the 1/12th indemnification would not be applicable are when the contract is terminated by principal with cause. The Brazilian Agency Law has limited situations for principal to terminate the contract with cause:

  • acts by agent causing disrepute of the principal
  • breach of obligations related to the agency activities
  • criminal conviction related to honor, reputation

These situations shall be clearly demonstrated. Producing the sufficiently strong evidence of the facts to configure cause for termination may not be an easy task, considering some of the facts may be subject to construing and interpreting by the parties, witnesses and ultimately the judge.

As a result, from past experiences, it is rare to see principals in conditions not to incur in the 1/12th indemnification.

Potential risk: configuring employment relationship

In addition to the indemnification, the activities developed by the agent could eventually be deemed as performed by a regular employee of the principal and, in this case, principal could be subject to compensate the agent as an employee.

Agent vs. employee

For the appreciation of the employment relationship, the individual acting as agent shall file a labor claim and demonstrate the existence of the employment relationship.

The Labor Court judge will consider the factual situation, prevailing upon the written agreements or other formal documents. The judge may rely on e-mails, witnesses and other evidence.

The elements of an employment relationship are:

  • Individual: in case the individual acts by himself to perform the services; Personal services: the services are in fact performed by the individual specifically to the Principal;;
  • Non-eventuality – exclusivity: the services are rendered in a regular basis;
  • Subordination: key factor – the individual has to follow strict instructions directed by principal, such as reporting to an employee of the principal, determined visits;
  • Rewarding – fixed remuneration: the individual is awarded regular amounts and expenses allowances

In the event the individual can demonstrate the existence of the elements to configure an employment relationship, he/she could have an award to entitle him/her to have his remuneration considered as of a regular employee for the last 5 years.

As a result, the individual would be awarded the payment of Christmas bonus (equivalent to 1 monthly remuneration per year), vacation allowance (1/3 of a monthly remuneration per year), unemployment guarantee fund (1 monthly remuneration per year) plus other benefits that he/she would be given as an employee of principal (based on the collective bargaining agreement between the employees’ and employers’ unions). The company would also be obliged to make the payment of the co-related social security contributions.

Needless to say, the result could turn into a considerable potential contingency.

The author of this article is Paulo Yamaguchi

Uno dei momenti più delicati di qualsiasi operazione di M&A è sicuramente il momento in cui si affronta il tema delle «garanzie», in particolare con riferimento alla situazione economica, patrimoniale e finanziaria della società o dell’azienda (o di un ramo d’azienda), ovvero le c.d. «business warranties».

Da un lato, infatti, il compratore vorrebbe «blindare» quanto più possibile il proprio investimento, riducendo al minimo il rischio di sorprese. Al contrario, il venditore vorrebbe contenere il più possibile le garanzie offerte, che spesso si traducono in un limite temporaneo al pieno godimento dei frutti della vendita, di cui magari necessita per effettuare un altro investimento.

È bene precisare, innanzi tutto, che con il termine «garanzie» si fa normalmente riferimento, in modo atecnico, ad un articolato set di previsioni contrattuali contenenti:

  • le dichiarazioni del venditore circa lo stato di salute della società o dell’azienda (o del ramo d’azienda) ceduta;
  • gli obblighi d’indennizzo assunti dal venditore in caso di «violazione» (ossia non corrispondenza al vero) delle dichiarazioni rese;
  • gli strumenti previsti al fine di assicurare l’effettività degli obblighi d’indennizzo assunti.

Vi sono diverse ragioni per cui tale set è necessario, ma la principale è che nei contratti di M&A non trovano applicazione le garanzie civilistiche sulle vendita se non limitatamente al bene venduto, pertanto, se il bene venduto sono le partecipazioni, le garanzie non coprono gli asset sottostanti della società, e, nei casi eccezionali in cui trovano applicazione, i termini brevi e le limitazioni stringenti rendono, comunque, opportuna l’assunzione di obbligazioni accessorie volte a garantire il buon esito economico dell’operazione.

Ciò è confermato dalla pratica: nelle operazioni di M&A non vi è contratto che non includa il set delle garanzie.

Le dichiarazioni, in particolare, recepiscono normalmente la due diligence svolta dal compratore, preceduta, a sua volta, da un non disclosure agreement (NDA), finalizzato a tutelare le informazioni messe a disposizione.

Eventuali criticità che dovessero emergere dovranno essere adeguatamente riportate. Ovviamente, non è detto che un’eventuale criticità, laddove si concretizzi, debba necessariamente far scattare un obbligo d’indennizzo. Spetterà alle parti regolamentare tale aspetto, potendo anche prevedere che il relativo rischio resti a carico del compratore, magari a fronte di una riduzione del prezzo.

In merito all’obbligo d’indennizzo dovranno poi essere attentamente negoziati alcuni aspetti. I principali sono sicuramente:

  • la durata (es. maggiore per le garanzie fiscali);
  • a chi spetta l’eventuale indennizzo (al compratore o alla società; all’uno o all’altra a seconda dei casi);
  • eventuali detrazioni e /o limitazioni (es. perdite fiscali);
  • l’importo massimo indennizzabile;
  • un’eventuale franchigia;
  • la procedura d’indennizzo (es. termini per la richiesta, procedura di composizione, situazioni particolari, etc.).

Si tratta di aspetti importantissimi, che non devono essere sottovalutati. È chiaro, ad esempio, che non disciplinare adeguatamente la procedura d’indennizzo rischia di vanificare tutto il lavoro fatto prima.

Infine, dovranno essere previsti strumenti idonei al fine di assicurare la tutela effettiva del compratore. Tra questi, quelli più tradizionali sono:

  • la fideiussione;
  • il contratto autonomo di garanzia;
  • il deposito fiduciario («escrow»);
  • la dilazione di pagamento;
  • il meccanismo di «earn out»;
  • il c.d. «price adjustment»;
  • la lettera di patronage;
  • il pegno e/o l’ipoteca.

Si tratta di strumenti tutti più o meno largamente utilizzati nella pratica, che presentano ciascuno dei pro e dei contro.

Qui, tuttavia, vogliamo occuparci di un nuovo strumento di natura assicurativa, a cui si sta cominciando a fare ricorso negli ultimi tempi: le c.d. «Polizze Warranty & Indemnity».

Con una polizza W&I, in pratica, l’assicuratore, a fronte del pagamento di un premio, assume su di sé il rischio derivante dalla violazione delle dichiarazioni contenute in un contratto di M&A.

Presupposto fondamentale, ovviamente, è che la violazione derivi da fatti antecedenti al closing e non noti in quel momento (e, quindi, non evidenziati dalla due diligence effettuata).

La polizza può essere sottoscritta dal compratore (buyer side) o dal venditore (seller side). Di regola è preferita la prima soluzione. Tali polizze W&I presentano numerosi vantaggi:

  • si ottiene una garanzia a fronte di un venditore non sempre disponibile ad impegnarsi contrattualmente;
  • la polizza generalmente non prevede l’ipotesi di regresso nei confronti del venditore, salvo il caso di dolo, per cui il venditore è integralmente liberato;
  • è possibile ottenere un massimale maggiore di quello previsto nel contratto di compravendita;
  • analogamente, la copertura può essere prevista per un periodo più lungo;
  • si facilitano le relazioni con il venditore, specie nel caso ci siano più venditori ed alcuni di essi restino nella società, magari occupando un posto nel Consiglio d’Amministrazione;
  • si facilita notevolmente il processo d’indennizzo, specie nel caso in cui ci siano più venditori, magari persone fisiche;
  • il compratore riesce ad avere una maggiore certezza di solvibilità.

Il costo della polizza potrebbe essere condiviso tra le parti, eventualmente con uno sconto del prezzo, che il venditore potrebbe essere disposto a concedere tenuto conto del fatto che non dovrà rilasciare altre garanzie e potrà godere immediatamente dei frutti della vendita.

Il premio è normalmente compreso tra l’1% ed il 2% del limite d’indennizzo previsto (con un premio minimo).

Attualmente, i limiti principali di questo strumento paiono essere, oltre al prezzo, che rende lo strumento adatto principalmente ad operazioni di importo non piccolo, la franchigia standard normalmente prevista, pari all’1% dell’Enterprise Value del Target, riducibile allo 0,5% a fronte di un innalzamento del premio. Da tenere presente inoltre che la polizza W&I implica la revisione della due diligence da parte della compagnia, che può tradursi in un intervento attivo nella negoziazione delle garanzie.

A parte ciò, lo strumento è da considerare attentamente: in presenza di situazioni particolarmente complesse, potrebbe rappresentare la giusta soluzione per sbloccare situazioni di stallo negoziale e rendere più agevoli negoziazioni tra investitori professionali e PMI.

The procedure to incorporate a foreign owned company in Spain is, in principle, easy and straight forward, however it is necessary to take into account certain new requirements derived from the tax and the anti-money laundering regulations, which could cause long delays in the incorporation process, even to EU and US companies, if they are not well advised and managed from the beginning of the procedure.

The first step consist in collecting information about the foreign shareholder, in order to be able to prove its legal existence and activities: the foreign shareholder(s) will have to grant before a Notary Public in its country of residence a power of attorney authorising somebody in Spain to obtain its tax identification number (“NIE”), and also represent it before the Spanish notary when signing the deed of incorporation. In case the foreign shareholder is an individual person, the NIE should be applied for before the Spanish police or the Spanish Consulate at the country where the investor lives.

If the shareholder is a corporation, apart from the Power of Attorney, it will have to obtain a certificate from its Companies’ Registry or Chamber of Commerce, stating its legal existence and main characteristics. This document is called “good standing certificate” (in the UK and US), “K-bis” (in France), “KvK” (in the Netherlands) or “visura” (in Italy). These two documents, the Power of Attorney mentioned in the above paragraph and the certificate from the Companies’ Registry, will have to be Apostilled or legalized by the correspondent Ministry, and Sworn translated into Spanish. Please note that we use to draft bilingual powers of attorney in order to avoid its sworn translation.

The foreign shareholder will have to prove that its income is obtained from legal activities in order to be able to open a bank account in the name of the new company. The main document to prove this could be the Corporate or the Personal Income Tax return filed in its country of residence, but there could be other means, especially in case of individual persons.

In case of a corporate shareholder, it will be necessary as well to declare, in principle through a public deed granted in Spain, who are the individual persons who, directly or through other companies, will hold more than a 25% interest in the new company to be incorporated. In case nobody holds more than a 25% (i.e. because there are 5 individual shareholders, holding each of them a 20%), it is declared that the effective control of the new company corresponds to its director.

At this stage, it is also necessary to mention that the person(s) who will be the director(s) of the new company, in case they are foreigners, will also need to obtain their personal “NIE”. The NIE should be applied for before the Spanish police (this could be done by a proxy duly authorised though a Power of Attorney granted by the foreign director) or before the Spanish Consulate nearest to the city where the investor lives. In order to be a director of a Spanish company it is not necessary to be a shareholder, nor to have residence and work permit in Spain (provided the foreign director does not live in Spain).

Meanwhile the necessary documents (Powers of Attorney, Companies’ Registry certificate, etc.) are being prepared by the foreign shareholder, the lawyer in Spain will apply for the new company’s name. It is advisable to point out that generic or usual names are not available quite often, therefore it is necessary to think in original names. Three different names could be applied for simultaneously.

The drafting of the company’s Articles of Association or By Laws could be very quick, except if the company is going to have several shareholders and they wish specific clauses. In this case, it is also advisable to draft a Shareholders Agreement. The Shareholders’ Agreement could just contain some basic rules on dedication, compensation, non-competition, etc. and some more sophisticated rules on the sale of shares (tag along and drag along rights). As regards the By-Laws, they should mention the company’s name, its activity or activities, address in Spain –which cannot be just a P.O. Box-, share capital, number of shares and its face value, and starting date for the fiscal year, among other standard clauses.

The management of the company could be organized through a sole director, two directors who could act jointly or separately, and in case there are more than three directors, they should organize themselves through a Board of Directors, being usual in this case to appoint a C.E.O. In order to be a director it is not necessary to be a shareholder. Under Spanish laws, the director(s) could be held liable for some company’s debts under certain circumstances which are legally defined. For this reason, it is necessary that the directors formally accept their appointment (personally appearing before the Notary or through a Power of Attorney).

Before the incorporation, it will be necessary that either the new company’s director (the person to be appointed) or the representative of the corporate shareholder appears personally before the bank where the company will have its first bank account and signs the correspondent documents (KYC regulation). Once the bank account is opened, the shareholder will have to send a bank transfer for the new company’s share capital. In Spain, the minimum share capital for a limited company (S.L.) is Euros 3.000, while for a “Sociedad Anónima” (S.A.) it is Euros 60.000, but only 25% should be paid off at the incorporation moment. It is interesting to note that contributions to the share capital could be made in cash – which is the most common operation, especially at the incorporation – or in kind, with any type of assets: real estate, machinery, goods, trademarks, etc. The money for the share capital should be sent to the new company’s bank account from an account owned by the shareholder (or from each account owned by each shareholder, should they be several ones), not by any other different person. Once the Spanish bank receives the transfer, it will issue a certificate, which is necessary in order to incorporate the company.

Once all the documents are ready, it is possible within very few days (almost immediately) to make the appointment with the Notary and sign the public deed of incorporation. This can be done at any notary in Spain, not being necessary that the notary practises at the same city where the company will have its corporate address. In order to summarize, the list of the necessary documents is:

  • Power(s) of Attorney granted by the foreign shareholder(s), apostilled and sworn translated.
  • Certificate regarding the legal existence of the foreign shareholder (only if it is a corporation), apostilled and sworn translated.
  • Statement on who are the last individual shareholders holding more than 25% interest in the new company, directly or indirectly (only in case of corporate shareholders).
  • NIE of the foreign shareholder(s).
  • NIE of the new company’s director(s), should they be a foreigners.
  • Certificate for the new company’s name.
  • Articles of Association.
  • Bank certificate regarding the contribution to the new company’s share capital.

The deed of incorporation is signed by the proxy (or the individual shareholder(s), should they prefer to personally appear before the notary) before the chosen public notary, being also necessary to sign an official form to report the foreign investment to a public registry depending on the Spanish Ministry of Finance.

Once the deed of incorporation is signed, the next steps consist in applying before the tax authorities to obtain the new company’s tax number (NIF / CIF) and filing the deed of incorporation before the Companies’ Registry. Some banks do allow new companies to operate once they have the NIF (which could be 2-3 days after the incorporation), while others request to wait until the deed of incorporation is filed at the Companies’ Registry (2-3 weeks).

An estimation of the necessary time to complete all the procedure is 30-45 days, but of course the main delay is related to speed of the foreign investor in obtaining the necessary documents.

Please note that if you wish to incorporate a foreign owned company in Spain it is always necessary to seek specific professional advice, as each case is different and regulations and the application of such regulations vary from time to time. The above article just explains the main steps and requirements for the incorporation of a company.

In all M&A operations one of the issues that deserves special attention as regards its analysis, ascertainment and negotiation is the tax liabilities. Even though the parties could agree on the amount of such contingencies, to negotiate the possible guarantees that the seller should grant in order to protect the buyer from a possible claim by the tax authorities, the term during which the guarantees should be in force, and to agree on the communication mechanisms between the parties (buyer and seller) and the legal defense strategies if such claim from the tax authorities arises, requires substantial negotiation efforts.

When the acquisition operation is formalized not through the purchase of shares, but through the purchase of the assets that form a business unit, the Spanish General Tax Law (“Ley General Tributaria” or “LGT”) provides a mechanism which implies an exception to the general principle provided by article 42 of the same law. Article 42 of LGT establishes the joint liability of the purchaser of a business unit for the tax liabilities of the selling company (“tax liability derived from company’s succession”). That is, in principle, according to article 42 of the LGT “the persons or entities that continue by any mean in the ownership or exercise of economic activities (the buyers) will be jointly liable with the previous owner for the tax liabilities derived from the exercise of such economic activities incurred by such previous owner”.

However, the joint tax liability of the buyer could be limited through the application before the tax authorities of the tax certificate regulated by article 175.2 of the LGT. This certificate should be applied for by the prospective buyer, with the authorization of the present owner (the seller), and, once issued, the tax liability of the buyer becomes limited to the debts, penalties and liabilities mentioned in the certificate. If the certificate is issued without mentioning any amount, or if the tax authorities do not issue it within a three months term from the application’s date, the applicant (the buyer) will be released from any tax liability derived from company’s succession.

The tax certificate for succession purposes includes the main taxes, as Value Added Tax and Corporate Income Tax, and can include as well debts derived from the withholding taxes on employees’ payroll, which in case of companies with a big number of employees could be of an outstanding amount. However, the buyer’s joint liability for salaries, related payroll amounts and social security contributions cannot be limited by such certificate, and such liability will always be joint with the business unit seller’s liability.

The application for the tax certificate should be filed before the acquisition of the business unit is completed, even if the issuance of the certificate takes place later tan the closing date (but of course, it is wiser to not close the acquisition before having the certificate). The certificate’s validity lasts for one year, as regards periodical tax obligations (for example, Value Added Tax, Corporate Income Tax and withholding taxes on salaries) and for three months as regards non periodical tax obligations.

It is very important to apply for the right tax certificate (“certificate for succession purposes according to article 175.2 of LGT”), and to not make a mistake and apply, for example, for the certificate regarding having fulfilled all tax obligations (“certificado de estar al corriente de las obligaciones fiscales”). Case law is plenty of judgments where a buyer applied for the wrong certificate, which showed no liabilities, and later on such buyer has been sentenced to pay the tax liabilities incurred by the previous owner of the business unit.

When M&A transactions in Brazil are deemed not successful by the investor the main reason for underperformance is generally the existence of debts or fiscal/labor contingencies materialized higher than evaluated, or unexpected material adverse changes.

The reasons for overlooking the debts and fiscal/labor contingencies is often the rush to close the investment. Either for avoiding a competitor to acquire the target, or to keep the leading position of the market share, for certain cases, the buyers may have not paid proper attention to what their advisors had to say before closing the deal.

  1. Local legal advisors

The legal advisors may take, for the perception of the executives eager to complete an acquisition, a bit longer than expected to round up facts and properly report the risks found. The perception for this lower pace to reach out the conclusions may differ from the executives due to the delay of seller to provide documents or clarify questions raised.

Slowing down a bit to the benefit of certainty is a sound advice.

Experienced Brazilian advisors shall always be included among the teams. Their knowledge on facing subtle change of applicable laws, rules or predominant court decisions is certainly valuable for better understanding the status of the target and the ways to mitigate risks.

Certain facts may not seem at first as significant risk for first timers dealing with Brazilian matters. However, the advisors do have a reason to raise the point and should be properly heard. Examples such as absence of one single clear certificate issued by a government department or a missing report on disposal of solid residues, that may not seem a big issue, could turn into a risk of suspension of activities of a plant.

An audit company is usually hired to identify tax and labor contingencies, but the audit company does not evaluate nor assess the numbers, only the maximum exposure. The legal advisors are in charge of the risk assessment and determination of the estimate of the contingencies. It is up to the buyer to accept and negotiate the relevant coverage for such contingencies.

Seller may not give full details of all issues of the target at first. It is the role of the advisors to investigate, request further documents and clarification to bring matters that affect the business to buyer’s attention. In a good faith scenario, seller would be willing to discuss the matters, to avoid future disputes or frustrations to buyer.

  1. Debt

Charges, penalties, interests and other compensations in financial operations turns these contracts full of minor details and very complex in anywhere in the world. Brazilian contracts are not exception. That is the reason why a proper assessment of the financial operations and obtain the real picture of the debt and related costs.

As usual, attention to change of control provisions are also relevant to mitigate risks – absence of consent or non-compliance of the required steps prior to closing the operation can cause acceleration of the financial operation and trigger cross-default provisions in other contracts that can also lead to acceleration of the financial operations.

  1. Tax/labor contingencies

Calculation and estimate of tax contingencies are specific for each tax and requires knowledge and a sound judgment to estimate exposure and appoint measures to cover the risks. Same level of care applies to labor-related contingencies.

Tax and labor matters are usually the most relevant risks to be observed in a Brazilian target. Complexity of regulation and the amount of obligations to fulfill makes these points significant.

  1. Material adverse change

Material adverse change clauses – “MAC Clauses” – are contractual provisions to mitigate negative effects or a substantial change to the parties. These provisions are admitted in Brazilian law, in view the M&A transaction documents are executed in good faith and respecting the parties’ freedom to commit to certain obligations.

Needless to say, the MAC Clauses should contain crystal clear language, with objective description of the facts, well defined applicable time period, cause and consequences duly described for proper and easy execution. If not, determination of MAC Clause event shall end on a dispute.

In the absence of MAC Clauses, Brazilian Civil Code contemplates the ability to any party in a continuous contractual relation to seek for the termination of the contract, by virtue of extraordinary and unpredictable facts, in the event such party is affected with excessive onus and generates extreme advantage to another party. Determination whether the parties were subject to extraordinary and unpredictable facts would depend nevertheless on ruling by a judge or arbitrator, as provided in the acquisition documents.

  1. Guarantees and Indemnification

For avoidance of future problems, the buyer should obtain strong and prompt executable guarantees. The (a) ability to withhold payments, (b) deposit of part of the purchase price in escrow account with clear rules for withdrawing the escrow amount are most likely measures to ensure a prompt indemnification. From previous experiences, other guarantees like pledge of shares, personal guarantee, lien or even chattel mortgage over real property are harder to execute and indemnify the prejudiced party.

De minimis clauses (minimum amount for a party to be indemnified – if not reached, the prejudiced party is not going to receive any indemnification) or basket (limitation of indemnifiable amount) are additions to the provisions for guarantees also acceptable for Brazilian M&A transactions.

The experienced advisors will make a difference to assist on the drafting of these provisions and to reflect what the parties discussed and agreed on the table.

  1. Break-up Fees

A conscious buyer will certainly avoid the risk of incurring in heavy break-up fees, with proper assessment provided by competent advisors of what may happen until closing. Nevertheless, in certain cases, even after signing a binding document, it might make sense paying a break-up fee even if substantial rather than entering into a risky transaction.

Recent Brazilian M&A transactions have included break-up fees, applicable in case of the regulatory restrictions are too high or in case the buyer gives up the acquisition. The highest break-up fee known was included in an offer made by Paper Excellence (member of Asia Pulp and Paper, based in Indonesia) was BRL 4 billion (over USD 1 billion or around EUR 900 million). The deal was not closed as another bidder had better credit check (even proposing lower break-up fees).

In 2015, Ânima paid BRL 46 million (around USD 12.5 million or EUR 10.6 million) of break-up fees to Whitney do Brasil – education sector – for giving up the acquisition due to changes on students’ public financing rules. In 2018, Ultragaz paid BRL 280 million (around USD 75 million or EUR 64 million) in break-up fees to Liquigás, due to the veto by the Brazilian antitrust authority for the operation.

  1. Recommendations

In this regard, the recommendations to avoid the referred reasons for a not satisfactory failure in M&A transactions in Brazil are:

  • Rely on local advisors: make sure that local Brazilian experts are included in the advisory team – the proper Brazilian legal, accountancy, tax and business experts can provide you with the necessary and valuable information for the proper decision-making process;
  • Listen to what the local advisors have to say: some matters raised may not seem to harm the deal, but it is important to let your advisor give you the full explanation and the reasons why the advisor is concerned about the topic. The advisor has a reason to bring the matters to discussion;
  • On the buy-side, ensure the existence of proper guarantees – feasible and enforceable – for prompt reimbursement of the losses, instead of discussions or long disputes;
  • Be very attentive in the preparation and discussion of the indemnification, procedure for indemnifying a prejudiced party, accommodating the business negotiation and the coverage to the risks explained by the advisors;
  • MAC Clauses shall be clear, precise and objective; and
  • However hard may be, it might make sense paying a break-up fee instead of completing a risky transaction.

The author of this article is Paulo Yamaguchi

Simone Rossi

Aree di attività

  • Diritto societario
  • Contratti
  • M&A
  • Fallimentare
  • Private Equity
Contatta Simone

Scrivi a Simone





    Leggi la privacy policy di Legalmondo.
    Questo sito è protetto da reCAPTCHA e si applicano le Norme sulla privacy e i Termini di servizio di Google.

    Costituire una SRL on line – Dal 1° Agosto 2021 sarà possibile

    27 Agosto 2019

    • Europa
    • Italia
    • M&A

    This week the Interim Injunction Judge of the Netherlands Commercial Court ruled in summary proceedings, following a video hearing, in a case on a EUR 169 million transaction where the plaintiff argued that the final transaction had been concluded and the defendant should proceed with the deal.

    This in an – intended – transaction where the letter of intent stipulates that a EUR 30 million break fee is due when no final agreement is signed.

    In addition to ruling on this question of construction of an agreement under Dutch law, the judge also had to rule on the break fee if no agreement was concluded and whether it should be amended or reduced because of the current Coronavirus / Covid-19 crisis.

    English Language proceedings in a Dutch state court, the Netherlands Commercial Court (NCC)

    The case is not just interesting because of the way contract formation is construed under Dutch law and application of concepts of force majeure, unforeseen circumstances and amendment of agreements under the concepts of reasonableness and fairness as well as mitigation of contractual penalties, but also interesting because it was ruled on by a judge of the English language chamber of the Netherlands Commercial Court (NCC).

    This new (2019) Dutch state court offers a relatively fast and cost-effective alternative for international commercial litigation, and in particular arbitration, in a neutral jurisdiction with professional judges selected for both their experience in international disputes and their command of English.

    The dispute regarding the construction of an M&A agreement under Dutch law in an international setting

    The facts are straightforward. Parties (located in New York, USA and the Netherlands) dispute whether final agreement on the EUR 169 million transaction has been reached but do agree a break fee of €30 million in case of non-signature of the final agreement was agreed. However, in addition to claiming there is no final agreement, the defendant also argues that the break fee – due when there is no final agreement – should be reduced or changed due to the coronavirus crisis.

    As to contract formation it must be noted that Dutch law allows broad leeway on how to communicate what may or may not be an offer or acceptance. The standard is what a reasonable person in the same circumstances would have understood their communications to mean.  Here, the critical fact is that the defendant did not sign the so-called “Transaction Agreement”. The letter of intent’s binary mechanism (either execute and deliver the paperwork for the Transaction Agreement by the agreed date or pay a EUR 30 million fee) may not have been an absolute requirement for contract formation (under Dutch law) but has significant evidentiary weight. In M&A practice – also under Dutch law – with which these parties are thoroughly familiar with, this sets a very high bar for  concluding a contract was agreed other than by explicit written agreement. So, parties may generally comfortably rely on what they have agreed on in writing with the assistance of their advisors.

    The communications relied on by claimant in this case did not clear the very high bar to assume that despite the mechanism of the letter of intent and the lack of a signed Transaction Agreement there still was a binding agreement. In particular attributing the other party’s advisers’ statements and/or conduct to the contracting party they represent did not work for the claimant in this case as per the verdict nothing suggested that the advisers would be handling everything, including entering into the agreement.

    Court order for actual performance of a – deemed – agreement on an M&A deal?

    The Interim Injunction Judge finds that there is not a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits so as to justify an interim measure ordering the defendant to actually perform its obligations under the disputed Transaction Agreement (payment of EUR 169 million and take the claimant’s 50% stake in an equestrian show-jumping business).

    Enforcement of the break fee despite “Coronavirus”?

    Failing the conclusion of an agreement, there was still another question to answer as the letter of intent mechanism re the break fee as such was not disputed. Should the Court enforce the full EUR 30 million fee in the current COVID-19 circumstances? Or should the fee’s effects be modified, mitigated or reduced in some way, or  the fee agreement should even be dissolved?

    Unforeseen circumstances, reasonableness and fairness

    The Interim Injunction Judge rules that the coronavirus crisis may be an unforeseen circumstance, but it is not of such a nature that, according to standards of reasonableness and fairness, the plaintiff cannot expect the break fee obligation to remain unchanged. The purpose of the break fee is to encourage parties to enter into the transaction and attribute / share risks between them. As such the fee limits the exposure of the parties. Payment of the fee is a quick way out of the obligation to pay the purchase price of EUR 169 million and the risks of keeping the target company financially afloat. If financially the coronavirus crisis turns out less disastrous than expected, the fee of EUR 30 million may seem high, but that is what the parties already considered reasonable when they waived their right to invoke the unreasonableness of the fee. The claim for payment of the EUR 30 million break fee is therefore upheld by the Interim Injunction Judge.

    Applicable law and the actual practice of it by the courts

    The relevant three articles are in this case articles 6:94, 6:248 and 6:258 of the Dutch Civil Code. They relate to the mitigation of contractual penalties, unforeseen circumstances and amendment of the agreement under the tenets of reasonableness and fairness. Under Dutch law the courts must with all three exercise caution. Contracts must generally be enforced as agreed. The parties’ autonomy is deemed paramount and the courts’ attitude is deferential. All three articles use language stating, essentially, that interference by the courts in the contract’s operation is allowed only to avoid an “unacceptable” impact, as assessed under standards of reasonableness and fairness.

    There is at this moment of course no well- established case law on COVID-19. However, commentators have provided guidance that is very helpful to think through the issues. Recently a “share the pain” approach has been advocated by a renowned law Professor, Tjittes, who focuses on preserving the parties’ contractual equilibrium in the current circumstances. This is, in the Court’s analysis, the right way to look at the agreement here. There is no evidence in the record suggesting that the parties contemplated or discussed the full and exceptional impact of the COVID-19 crisis. The crisis may or may not be unprovided for.  However, the court rules in the current case there is no need to rule on this issue. Even if the crisis is unprovided for, there is no support in the record for the proposition that the crisis makes it unacceptable for the claimant to demand strict performance by the defendant. The reasons are straightforward.

    The break fee allocates risk and expresses commitment and caps exposure. The harm to the business may be substantial and structural, or it may be short-term and minimal. Either way, the best “share the pain” solution, to preserve the contractual equilibrium in the agreement, is for the defendant to pay the fee as written in the letter of intent. This allocates a defined risk to one party, and actual or potential risks to the other party. Reducing the break fee in any business downturn, the fee’s express purpose – comfort and confidence to get the deal done – would not be accomplished and be derived in precisely the circumstances in which it should be robust. As a result, the Court therefore orders to pay the full EUR 30 million fee. So the break fee stipulation works under the circumstances without mitigation because of the Corona outbreak.

    The Netherlands Commercial Court, continued

    As already indicated above, the case is interesting because the verdict has been rendered by a Dutch state court in English and the proceedings where also in English. Not because of a special privilege granted in a specific case but based on an agreement between parties with a proper choice of forum clause for this court. In addition to the benefit to of having an English forum without mandatorily relying on either arbitration or choosing an anglophone court, it also has the benefit of it being a state court with the application of the regular Dutch civil procedure law, which is well known by it’s practitioners and reduces the risk of surprises of a procedural nature.  As it is as such also a “normal” state court, there is the right to appeal and particularly effective under Dutch law access to expedited proceeding as was also the case in the example referred to above. This means a regular procedure with full application of all evidentiary rules may still follow, overturning or confirming this preliminary verdict in summary proceedings.

    Novel technology in proceedings

    Another first or at least a novel application is that all submissions were made in eNCC, a document upload procedure for the NCC. Where the introduction of electronic communication and litigation in the Dutch court system has failed spectacularly, the innovations are now all following in quick order and quite effective. As a consequence of the Coronavirus outbreak several steps have been quickly tried in practice and thereafter formally set up. At present this – finally – includes a secure email-correspondence system between attorneys and the courts.

    And, also by special order of the Court in this present case, given the current COVID-19 restrictions the matter was dealt with at a public videoconference hearing on 22 April 2020 and the case was set for judgment on 29 April 2020 and published on 30 April 2020.

    Even though it is a novel application, it is highly likely that similar arrangements will continue even after expiry of current emergency measures. In several Dutch courts videoconference hearings are applied on a voluntary basis and is expected that the arrangements will be formalized.

    Eligibility of cases for the Netherlands Commercial Court

    Of more general interest are the requirements for matters that may be submitted to NCC:

    • the Amsterdam District Court or Amsterdam Court of Appeal has jurisdiction
    • the parties have expressly agreed in writing that proceedings will be in English before the NCC (the ‘NCC agreement’)
    • the action is a civil or commercial matter within the parties’ autonomy
    • the matter concerns an international dispute.

    The NCC agreement can be recorded in a clause, either before or after the dispute arises. The Court even recommends specific wording:

    “All disputes arising out of or in connection with this agreement will be resolved by the Amsterdam District Court following proceedings in English before the Chamber for International Commercial Matters (“Netherlands Commercial Court” or “NCC District Court”), to the exclusion of the jurisdiction of any other courts. An action for interim measures, including protective measures, available under Dutch law may be brought in the NCC’s Court in Summary Proceedings (CSP) in proceedings in English. Any appeals against NCC or CSP judgments will be submitted to the Amsterdam Court of Appeal’s Chamber for International Commercial Matters (“Netherlands Commercial Court of Appeal” or “NCCA”).”

    The phrase “to the exclusion of the jurisdiction of any other courts” is included in light of the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements. It is not mandatory to include it of course and parties may decide not to exclude the jurisdiction of other courts or make other arrangements they consider appropriate. The only requirement being that such arrangements comply with the rules of jurisdiction and contract. Please note that choice of court agreements are exclusive unless the parties have “expressly provided” or “agreed” otherwise (as per the Hague Convention and Recast Brussels I Regulation).

    Parties in a pending case before another Dutch court or chamber may request that their case be referred to NCC District Court or NCC Court of Appeal. One of the requirements is to agree on a clause that takes the case to the NCC and makes English the language of the proceedings. The NCC recommends using this language:

    We hereby agree that all disputes in connection with the case [name parties], which is currently pending at the *** District Court (case number ***), will be resolved by the Amsterdam District Court following proceedings in English before the Chamber for International Commercial Matters (“Netherlands Commercial Court” or ”NCC District Court). Any action for interim measures, including protective measures, available under Dutch law will be brought in the NCC’s Court in Summary Proceedings (CSP) in proceedings in English. Any appeals against NCC or CSP judgments will be submitted to the Amsterdam Court of Appeal’s Chamber for International Commercial Matters (“Netherlands Commercial Court of Appeal” or “NCC Court of Appeal”).

    To request a referral, a motion must be made before the other chamber or court where the action is pending, stating the request and contesting jurisdiction (if the case is not in Amsterdam) on the basis of a choice-of-court agreement (see before).

    Additional arrangements in the proceedings before the Netherlands Commercial Court

    Before or during the proceedings, parties can also agree special arrangements in a customized NCC clause or in another appropriate manner. Such arrangements may include matters such as the following:

    • the law applicable to the substantive dispute
    • the appointment of a court reporter for preparing records of hearings and the costs of preparing those records
    • an agreement on evidence that departs from the general rules
    • the disclosure of confidential documents
    • the submission of a written witness statement prior to the witness examination
    • the manner of taking witness testimony
    • the costs of the proceedings.

    Visiting lawyers and typical course of the procedure

    All acts of process are in principle carried out by a member of the Dutch Bar. Member of the Bar in an EU or EEA Member State or Switzerland may work in accordance with Article 16e of the Advocates Act (in conjunction with a member of the Dutch Bar). Other visiting lawyers may be allowed to speak at any hearing.

    The proceedings will typically follow the below steps:

    • Submitting the initiating document by the plaintiff (summons or request as per Dutch law)
    • Assigned to three judges and a senior law clerk.
    • The defendant submits its defence statement.
    • Case management conference or motion hearing (e.g. also in respect of preliminary issues such as competence, applicable law etc.) where parties may present their arguments.
    • Judgment on motions: the court rules on the motions. Testimony, expert appointment, either at this stage or earlier or later.
    • The court may allow the parties to submit further written statements.
    • Hearing: the court interviews the parties and allows them to present their arguments. The court may enquire whether the dispute could be resolved amicably and, where appropriate, assist the parties in a settlement process. If appropriate, the court may discuss with the parties whether it would be advisable to submit part or all of the dispute to a mediator. At the end of the hearing, the court will discuss with the parties what the next steps should be.
    • Verdict: this may be a final judgment on the claims or an interim judgment ordering one or more parties to produce evidence, allowing the parties to submit written submissions on certain aspects of the case, appointing one or more experts or taking other steps.

    Continuous updates, online resources Netherlands Commercial Court

    As a final note the English language website of the Netherlands Commercial Court provides ample information on procedure and practical issues and is updated with a high frequence. Under current circumstance even at a higher pace. In particular for practitioners it’s recommended to regularly consult the website. https://www.rechtspraak.nl/English/NCC/Pages/default.aspx

    Le operazioni di acquisizione (M&A) in Italia, nella maggior parte dei casi, vengono realizzate attraverso acquisto di partecipazioni (‘share deal’) o di azienda o ramo d’azienda (‘asset deal’). Per ragioni principalmente fiscali sono più frequenti gli share deal rispetto agli asset deal, nonostante l’asset deal consenta una migliore limitazione dei rischi per l’acquirente. Vedremo le principali differenze tra share deal e asset deal in termini di rischi e di rapporti tra venditore e acquirente.

    Preferenza per operazioni di M&A mediante acquisto di partecipazioni (‘share deal’) rispetto ad acquisto di azienda o ramo d’azienda (‘asset deal’) nel mercato italiano

    In Italia, le operazione di acquisizione (M&A) vengono realizzate, nella maggior parte dei casi, attraverso acquisto di partecipazioni (‘share deal’) o di azienda o ramo d’azienda (‘asset deal’). Altre modalità, come la fusione, sono meno frequenti.

    Con l’acquisto di quote o azioni della società acquisita (‘share deal’) l’acquirente acquisisce, indirettamente, l’intero patrimonio aziendale (attività, passività, rapporti) e quindi si fa carico di tutti i rischi relativi alla precedente gestione della società.

    Con l’acquisto dell’azienda o di un ramo d’azienda (‘asset deal’) l’acquirente acquisisce un insieme di beni e rapporti organizzati per l’esercizio dell’impresa (immobili, impianti, dipendenti, contratti, crediti, debiti, ecc.). Il vantaggio dell’asset deal risiede nella possibilità per le parti di definire il perimetro del trasferimento e, quindi, per l’acquirente, di limitare i rischi legali dell’operazione.

    Nonostante questo vantaggio, la maggior parte delle operazioni di acquisizione in Italia avviene attraverso acquisto di partecipazioni. Nel 2018 gli acquisti di partecipazioni (azioni o quote) sono state circa 78.400, mentre le cessioni di azienda sono state circa 35.900 (fonte: www.notariato.it/it/news/dati-statistici-notarili-anno-2018). E va osservato che il dato delle cessioni d’azienda comprende anche le aziende di piccole o piccolissime dimensioni esercitate da imprenditori individuali, per le quali l’alternativa dello share deal (pur praticabile, attraverso il conferimento dell’azienda in una newco e la cessione delle partecipazioni nella newco) non è percorribile in concreto per ragioni di costo.

    Costi fiscali delle operazioni di acquisizione (M&A) in Italia

    La principale ragione della preferenza per l’acquisto di partecipazione (‘share deal’) rispetto all’acquisto di azienda (‘asset deal’) risiede nei costi fiscali dell’operazione. Vediamo quali sono, in linea generale.

    Nell’acquisto di partecipazioni, le imposte dirette a carico del venditore vengono calcolate sulla plusvalenza, secondo le seguenti percentuali:

    • se il venditore è una società di capitali (s.p.a.; s.r.l.; s.a.p.a.) l’aliquota è del 24% della plusvalenza. Ma, a determinate condizioni, si applica il regime della c.d. PEX (participation exemption) con applicazione dell’aliquota del 24% solo sul 5% della plusvalenza.
    • Se il venditore è una persona fisica l’aliquota sulla plusvalenza è del 26%.
    • Se il venditore è una società di persone (s.s.; s.n.c..; s.a.s.) la plusvalenza è integralmente imponibile, tuttavia al ricorrere di determinate condizioni, l’imponibilità è limitata al 60% dell’ammontare della plusvalenza. In entrambi i casi l’aliquota applicabile è quella marginale riferita a ciascun socio a cui il reddito viene imputato per trasparenza.

    Nell’acquisto di partecipazioni si applica l’imposta di registro, normalmente a carico dell’acquirente, di euro 200.

    Anche nell’acquisto di azienda, le imposte dirette a carico del venditore vengono calcolate sulla plusvalenza. Se il venditore è una società di capitali, l’aliquota è del 24% della plusvalenza. Se il venditore è una società di persone (con soci persone fisiche) o un imprenditore individuale, le aliquote dipendono dal reddito del venditore.

    Nell’acquisto di azienda si applicano le imposte indirette, normalmente a carico dell’acquirente, calcolate sulla parte del prezzo attribuibile ai singoli beni trasferiti. Il prezzo è il risultato delle attività trasferite detratte le passività trasferite. Le percentuali sono diverse a seconda del tipo di beni. In generale:

    • ai beni mobili si applica una imposta di registro del 3%;
    • all’avviamento si applica una imposta di registro del 3%;
    • ai fabbricati si applica una imposta di registro del 9% (e imposte ipotecarie e catastali in misura fissa di euro 50 ciascuna);
    • ai terreni si applica una imposta di registro tra il 9 e il 12% (a seconda dell’acquirente) e imposte ipotecarie e catastali in misura fissa di euro 50 ciascuna.

    Nel caso in cui l’azienda sia composta da beni soggetti ad aliquote diverse e le parti abbiano pattuito un corrispettivo unico, senza distinzione in merito al valore attribuibile ai singoli beni, l’imposta deve calcolarsi applicando all’unico corrispettivo pattuito l’aliquota più elevata.

    Va sottolineato che l’Agenzia delle Entrate può sottoporre ad accertamento il valore attribuito dalle parti ai beni immobili e all’avviamento, con conseguente rischio di applicazione di maggiori imposte.

    Share deal e asset deal: rischi e responsabilità verso i terzi

    Nell’acquisto di quote o azioni (‘share deal’) l’acquirente si fa carico, indirettamente, di tutti i rischi relativi alla precedente gestione della società.

    Nell’acquisto dell’azienda o di un ramo d’azienda (‘asset deal’), invece, le parti possono decidere il perimetro del trasferimento (quali beni e rapporti) così stabilendo, nei rapporti tra loro, i rischi che l’acquirente assume.

    Vi sono però alcune norme, che le parti non possono derogare, relative ai rapporti con i terzi, che influiscono significativamente sui rischi per il venditore e l’acquirente e quindi sulla negoziazione dell’accordo tra le parti. Le principali sono le seguenti.

    • Lavoratori dipendenti: il rapporto di lavoro continua con l’acquirente dell’azienda. Il venditore e l’acquirente sono obbligati in solido per tutti i crediti del lavoratore al momento del trasferimento (art. 2112 c.c.).
    • Debiti: il venditore è obbligato al pagamento di tutti i debiti sino alla data del trasferimento. L’acquirente è obbligato per i debiti che risultano dai libri contabili (art. 2560 c.c.).
    • Debiti e responsabilità fiscali: il venditore è obbligato al pagamento di debiti, imposte e sanzioni fiscali relative al periodo sino alla data del trasferimento.
      L’acquirente, in aggiunta all’obbligo relativo ai debiti fiscali che risultano dai libri contabili (art. 2560 c.c.), è responsabile per le imposte e sanzioni, anche se non risultano dai libri contabili, con i seguenti limiti (art. 14 D.lgs. 472/1997):
    • beneficio della preventiva escussione del venditore;
    • fino al valore dell’azienda o del ramo d’azienda acquistato;
    • per le imposte e sanzioni non ancora contestate, la responsabilità riguarda solo quelle relative all’anno della vendita dell’azienda e ai due precedenti; per le imposte e sanzioni relative al periodo anteriore ai due anni precedenti la vendita dell’azienda, la responsabilità riguarda solo quelle contestate entro tale periodo;
    • nei limiti del debito risultante alla data di trasferimento dagli atti degli uffici dell’amministrazione finanziaria. L’Agenzia delle Entrate è tenuta a rilasciare un certificato sull’esistenza di contestazioni in corso e sui debiti. Il certificato negativo, o non rilasciato entro 40 giorni dalla richiesta, libera l’acquirente da responsabilità.
    • Contratti: le parti possono scegliere quali contratti trasferire. Rispetto ai contratti trasferiti, l’acquirente subentra, anche senza il consenso del terzo contraente, nei contratti per l’esercizio dell’azienda che non hanno carattere personale (sono a carattere personale quelli che prevedono da parte del venditore una prestazione oggettivamente infungibile o soggettivamente infungibile). Inoltre il terzo contraente può recedere dal contratto entro tre mesi, se sussiste una giusta causa (ad esempio se l’acquirente non garantisce, per la propria situazione patrimoniale o per capacità tecniche, di poter adempiere al contratto) (art. 2558 c.c.).

    Alcuni strumenti per affrontare i rischi

    Per affrontare i rischi derivanti dalle responsabilità verso i terzi e i rischi generali connessi all’acquisizione, vi sono diversi strumenti negoziali e contrattuali che possono essere utilizzati. Vediamone alcuni.

    Nelle operazioni di acquisto dell’azienda o di rami d’azienda (‘asset deal’):

    • Lavoratori dipendenti: è possibile concordare con il lavoratore modifiche alle condizioni contrattuali e rinunce alla responsabilità solidale dell’acquirente e del venditore (ex art. 2112 c.c.). L’accordo con i lavoratore per essere valido deve essere concluso in sede ‘protetta’ (ad esempio: con l’assistenza delle organizzazioni sindacali).
    • Debiti:
    • trasferire all’acquirente i debiti riducendo il prezzo in misura corrispondente; la riduzione del prezzo comporta, inoltre, una minor costo fiscale dell’operazione. In caso di trasferimento dei debiti, per tutelare il venditore si può ottenere dal creditore una dichiarazione di liberazione del venditore dalla responsabilità ex art. 2560 c.c.; oppure si può prevedere che il pagamento del debito da parte dell’acquirente avvenga contestualmente al trasferimento dell’azienda (‘closing’).
    • Per i debiti non trasferiti all’acquirente, ottenere dal creditore una dichiarazione di liberazione dell’acquirente dalla responsabilità ex art. 2560 c.c.
    • Per i debiti per i quali non sia possibile ottenere la dichiarazione di liberazione da parte del creditore, pattuire forme di garanzia a favore del venditore (per i debiti trasferiti) o a favore dell’acquirente (per i debiti non trasferiti), quali ad esempio la dilazione del pagamento (a favore dell’acquirente) di parte del prezzo, il deposito fiduciario (‘escrow’) di parte del prezzo, fideiussioni bancarie o da parte dei soci.
    • Debiti e responsabilità fiscali:
    • ottenere dall’Agenzia delle Entrate il certificato ex art. 14 D.lgs. 472/1997 sui debiti e le contestazioni in corso;
    • trasferire all’acquirente i debiti riducendo il prezzo in misura corrispondente;
    • pattuire le forme di garanzia a favore del venditore (per i debiti trasferiti) e a favore dell’acquirente (per i debiti non trasferiti o per le contestazioni che non sono ancora debiti), quali ad esempio quelle sopra esposte per i debiti in generale.
    • Contratti: per quelli che vengono trasferiti:
    • verificare che le prestazioni a carico del venditore sino alla data del trasferimento siano state regolarmente adempiute, per evitare il rischio di contestazioni del terzo contraente che possono bloccare l’esecuzione del contratto;
    • almeno per i contratti più importanti (e salvo ragioni di riservatezza), cercare di ottenere conferma dal terzo contraente del benestare al trasferimento del contratto.

    Nelle operazioni di acquisto di partecipazioni (‘share deal’), in cui l’acquirente si fa carico, indirettamente, di tutti i rischi relativi alla precedente gestione della società, alcuni strumenti sono:

    • Due diligence. Svolgere una approfondita due diligence legale, fiscale e contabile sulla società, per valutare preventivamente i rischi e gestirli nella trattativa e nei contratti.
    • Dichiarazioni e garanzie (‘R&W’) e indennizzo. Prevedere nel contratto di acquisizione (‘share purchase agreement’) un set dettagliato di dichiarazioni e garanzie – e obblighi di indennizzo in caso di non conformità – a carico del venditore relativamente alla situazione della società (‘business warranties’: bilancio; situazione patrimoniale di riferimento; contratti; contenzioso; rispetto della normativa ambientale; autorizzazioni per lo svolgimento dell’attività; debiti; crediti ecc.). La trattativa sulle dichiarazioni e garanzie normalmente recepisce, gestendoli, gli esiti della due diligence (ad esempio: viene escluso dalle dichiarazioni e garanzie e dall’indennizzo un contenzioso emerso in due diligence, del quale le parti tengono conto nella definizione del prezzo). La pattuizione di dichiarazioni e garanzie sulla situazione della società (‘business warranties’) e dell’obbligo di indennizzo sono necessari negli share deal in Italia, in quanto in mancanza di tali clausole l’acquirente non può ottenere dal venditore (salvo situazioni estreme e molto rare) un risarcimento o indennizzo in caso la situazione della società sia diversa da quella considerata al momento dell’acquisto (così ad esempio: Cass. Civ. 16963/2014).
    • Garanzie per l’acquirente. Strumenti per garantire all’acquirente l’effettiva possibilità di ottenere l’indennizzo (o parte dell’indennizzo) in caso di non conformità delle dichiarazioni e garanzie. Tra queste: (a) la dilazione del pagamento di parte del prezzo; (b) il versamento di parte del prezzo in un deposito fiduciario (‘escrow’) per la durata delle dichiarazioni e garanzie e, in caso di contestazioni, fino a che la contestazione non è definita; (c) fideiussione bancaria;; (d) polizza W&I, contratto di assicurazione che copre il rischio dell’acquirente in caso di violazioni di dichiarazioni e garanzie, sino ad un importo massimo (ed esclusi alcuni rischi).

    Altri fattori che incidono sulla scelta tra share deal e asset deal

    Naturalmente la scelta di realizzare un’operazione di acquisizione in Italia mediante share deal o asset deal, dipende anche da altri fattori oltre a quello dei costi fiscali dell’operazione. Eccone alcuni.

    • Acquisto di parte del business. Si sceglie l’asset deal, quando l’operazione non riguarda l’acquisto dell’intera azienda del venditore ma solo una sua parte (un ramo d’azienda).
    • Situazione della società problematica. Si sceglie l’asset deal quando la situazione della società target è così problematica che l’acquirente non è disponibile ad assumere tutti i rischi derivanti dalla precedente gestione, ma solo parte di essi.
    • Mantenimento di un ruolo da parte del venditore. Si sceglie lo share deal quando si vuole conservare al venditore un ruolo nella società acquisita. In questo caso, oltre ad un ruolo nel management, è frequente il mantenimento da parte del venditore di una partecipazione di minoranza, con clausole di exit (diritti di put e call) decorso un certo periodo di tempo. Clausole che, spesso, legano il prezzo ai risultati futuri e, quindi, nell’interesse dell’acquirente incentivano il venditore nel ruolo manageriale e, nell’interesse del venditore, valorizzano prospettive reddituali non concretizzate al momento dell’acquisto.

    Dal 1° agosto 2021 non sarà più necessario, per la costituzione di una SRL – società a responsabilità limitata, recarsi dal notaio: la procedura potrà anche essere realizzata completamente on line, salvo casi eccezionali. Ciò è previsto dalla Direttiva U.E. 2019/1151, che impone agli stati di adeguarsi entro due anni. Vediamo cosa prevede la Direttiva.

    Come si costituisce una S.r.l. in Italia oggi

    In Italia, per costituire una società e, in particolare, una società a responsabilità limitata, è sempre necessario rivolgersi ad un notaio.

    Ciò vale anche per la c.d. «SRL semplificata», introdotta nel 2012 dal Decreto Legge «Liberalizzazioni». In questo caso, infatti, la legge prevede che, a fronte dell’utilizzo di uno statuto standard non modificabile, non vi siano oneri notarili da sostenere. Tuttavia, resta sempre necessario comparire avanti ad un notaio.

    Cosa cambierà da agosto 2021 con il recepimento della Direttiva U.E. 2019/1151

    Le cose dovranno cambiare con l’entrata in vigore della Direttiva U.E. 2019/1151, che modifica la Direttiva U.E. 2017/1132 in tema di uso di strumenti e processi digitali nel diritto societario.

    Entro il 1° agosto 2021, gli Stati membri dovranno aggiornare le procedure per la costituzione di una società in modo da garantire un doppio binario.

    Dovrà, cioè, essere possibile costituire una società sia con il metodo tradizionale, ossia rivolgendosi ad un notaio, oppure con procedure esclusivamente on line.

    Due eccezioni

    • l’art. 13-ter, par. 4, dispone che «ove sia giustificato da motivi di interesse pubblico per impedire l’usurpazione o l’alterazione di identità, gli Stati membri possono adottare misure che potrebbero richiedere la presenza fisica ai fini della verifica dell’identità del richiedente dinanzi a un’autorità o a qualsiasi persona od organismo incaricati… Gli Stati membri provvedono affinché la presenza fisica del richiedente possa essere richiesta solo se vi sono motivi di sospettare una falsificazione dell’identità e garantiscono che qualsiasi altra fase della procedura possa essere completata online»;
    • l’art. 13-octies, co. 8, dispone che «ove giustificato da motivi di interesse pubblici a garantire il rispetto delle norme sulla capacità giuridica e sull’autorità dei richiedenti di rappresentare una società, qualsiasi autorità o qualsiasi persona od organismo incaricato… può chiedere la presenza fisica del richiedente… Gli Stati membri garantiscono che tutte le altre fasi della procedura possano essere comunque completate on line».

    Gli Stati membri dovranno mettere a disposizione i modelli necessari per la costituzione delle società a responsabilità limitata «in almeno una lingua ufficiale dell’Unione ampiamente compresa dal maggior numero possibile di utenti transfrontalieri».

    Rischi

    La direttiva rappresenta, indubbiamente, un interessante tentativo di semplificazione, il cui successo dipenderà, tuttavia, da come verrà recepita dai singoli Stati membri.

    I rischi principali sono almeno due:

    1. il primo, facilmente intuibile, è che gli Stati membri rendano troppo oneroso l’accertamento dell’identità od il potere rappresentativo dei richiedenti, rendendo più semplice, in definitiva, il tradizionale ricorso ad un notaio;
    2. il secondo è che le procedure on line siano poco chiare o comprensibili, specie agli utenti stranieri. In tal senso, non appare sufficiente che i modelli siano resi disponibili, ma sarà necessario che le procedure online siano orientate alla maggiore semplificazione possibile e che i modelli siano tutti disponibili almeno in lingua inglese.

    Infine, è evidente che la digitalizzazione del procedimento di costituzione di una società non elimina l’opportunità di rivolgersi ad un professionista con il compito di consigliare il cliente nelle scelte che sarà necessario fare, ad esempio in materia di corporate governance.

    A legal due diligence of a Brazilian target company should analyze the existence and the content of Agency Agreements, including values paid to the agent and the nature of such payments and the factual situation of the target’s agents, in order to evaluate potential contingencies.

    One usual suspect in legal due diligences of Brazilian target companies in M&A transactions that should not be overlooked is the existence of agency agreements, due to:

    • the obligation to indemnify the agent stipulated by law: at least 1/12th of all commissions paid throughout the entire term of the agency agreement; and
    • the risks for the agency being disregarded and considered as an employment relationship, subjecting the principal to compensate the agent as an employee with all rights, benefits, taxes and social contributions.

    This should be considered for evaluation of potential contingencies and the impacts on the valuation of the target.

    No doubt that agents can be an important component of the sales force of the business and can be strategic for the activity of the principal, in view of a certain independence and for not increasing the payroll of a company.

    On the other hand, under Brazilian laws, the protective nature of the agency demands the principal a considerable level of attention.

    Indemnification

    Brazilian Federal Law No. 4,886/65 as amended – the Brazilian Agency Law – determines that the agent is entitled to, at the termination of an agency agreement, receive an indemnification of 1/12th calculated over all the commissions paid throughout the duration of the entire period of the agency agreement.

    The Brazilian Agency Law stipulates that if the parties sign a new contract within 6 months after the expiration of the previous, the relation between agent and principal shall be deemed as the same relationship and thus, the duration to calculate the indemnification shall encompass the entire period (past and subsequent contract).

    Termination by the agent

    The Brazilian Agency Law also stipulates situations that agent could terminate the contract and still be entitled to receive the 1/12th indemnification:

    • reduction of the activities in disagreement with the contractual stipulation
    • breach of exclusivity (territory and/or products), if so stipulated in the agreement
    • determination of prices that makes the agency unfeasible and
    • default on payment of the commissions
    • force majeure

    Termination without cause

    Termination without cause can be done, upon payment to agent of the indemnification and with a previous notice of at least 30 days, in which situation the agent shall receive the payment of 1/3 of the remuneration received during the previous 90 days prior to the termination.

    Can principal avoid the indemnification?

    The only cases where the 1/12th indemnification would not be applicable are when the contract is terminated by principal with cause. The Brazilian Agency Law has limited situations for principal to terminate the contract with cause:

    • acts by agent causing disrepute of the principal
    • breach of obligations related to the agency activities
    • criminal conviction related to honor, reputation

    These situations shall be clearly demonstrated. Producing the sufficiently strong evidence of the facts to configure cause for termination may not be an easy task, considering some of the facts may be subject to construing and interpreting by the parties, witnesses and ultimately the judge.

    As a result, from past experiences, it is rare to see principals in conditions not to incur in the 1/12th indemnification.

    Potential risk: configuring employment relationship

    In addition to the indemnification, the activities developed by the agent could eventually be deemed as performed by a regular employee of the principal and, in this case, principal could be subject to compensate the agent as an employee.

    Agent vs. employee

    For the appreciation of the employment relationship, the individual acting as agent shall file a labor claim and demonstrate the existence of the employment relationship.

    The Labor Court judge will consider the factual situation, prevailing upon the written agreements or other formal documents. The judge may rely on e-mails, witnesses and other evidence.

    The elements of an employment relationship are:

    • Individual: in case the individual acts by himself to perform the services; Personal services: the services are in fact performed by the individual specifically to the Principal;;
    • Non-eventuality – exclusivity: the services are rendered in a regular basis;
    • Subordination: key factor – the individual has to follow strict instructions directed by principal, such as reporting to an employee of the principal, determined visits;
    • Rewarding – fixed remuneration: the individual is awarded regular amounts and expenses allowances

    In the event the individual can demonstrate the existence of the elements to configure an employment relationship, he/she could have an award to entitle him/her to have his remuneration considered as of a regular employee for the last 5 years.

    As a result, the individual would be awarded the payment of Christmas bonus (equivalent to 1 monthly remuneration per year), vacation allowance (1/3 of a monthly remuneration per year), unemployment guarantee fund (1 monthly remuneration per year) plus other benefits that he/she would be given as an employee of principal (based on the collective bargaining agreement between the employees’ and employers’ unions). The company would also be obliged to make the payment of the co-related social security contributions.

    Needless to say, the result could turn into a considerable potential contingency.

    The author of this article is Paulo Yamaguchi

    Uno dei momenti più delicati di qualsiasi operazione di M&A è sicuramente il momento in cui si affronta il tema delle «garanzie», in particolare con riferimento alla situazione economica, patrimoniale e finanziaria della società o dell’azienda (o di un ramo d’azienda), ovvero le c.d. «business warranties».

    Da un lato, infatti, il compratore vorrebbe «blindare» quanto più possibile il proprio investimento, riducendo al minimo il rischio di sorprese. Al contrario, il venditore vorrebbe contenere il più possibile le garanzie offerte, che spesso si traducono in un limite temporaneo al pieno godimento dei frutti della vendita, di cui magari necessita per effettuare un altro investimento.

    È bene precisare, innanzi tutto, che con il termine «garanzie» si fa normalmente riferimento, in modo atecnico, ad un articolato set di previsioni contrattuali contenenti:

    • le dichiarazioni del venditore circa lo stato di salute della società o dell’azienda (o del ramo d’azienda) ceduta;
    • gli obblighi d’indennizzo assunti dal venditore in caso di «violazione» (ossia non corrispondenza al vero) delle dichiarazioni rese;
    • gli strumenti previsti al fine di assicurare l’effettività degli obblighi d’indennizzo assunti.

    Vi sono diverse ragioni per cui tale set è necessario, ma la principale è che nei contratti di M&A non trovano applicazione le garanzie civilistiche sulle vendita se non limitatamente al bene venduto, pertanto, se il bene venduto sono le partecipazioni, le garanzie non coprono gli asset sottostanti della società, e, nei casi eccezionali in cui trovano applicazione, i termini brevi e le limitazioni stringenti rendono, comunque, opportuna l’assunzione di obbligazioni accessorie volte a garantire il buon esito economico dell’operazione.

    Ciò è confermato dalla pratica: nelle operazioni di M&A non vi è contratto che non includa il set delle garanzie.

    Le dichiarazioni, in particolare, recepiscono normalmente la due diligence svolta dal compratore, preceduta, a sua volta, da un non disclosure agreement (NDA), finalizzato a tutelare le informazioni messe a disposizione.

    Eventuali criticità che dovessero emergere dovranno essere adeguatamente riportate. Ovviamente, non è detto che un’eventuale criticità, laddove si concretizzi, debba necessariamente far scattare un obbligo d’indennizzo. Spetterà alle parti regolamentare tale aspetto, potendo anche prevedere che il relativo rischio resti a carico del compratore, magari a fronte di una riduzione del prezzo.

    In merito all’obbligo d’indennizzo dovranno poi essere attentamente negoziati alcuni aspetti. I principali sono sicuramente:

    • la durata (es. maggiore per le garanzie fiscali);
    • a chi spetta l’eventuale indennizzo (al compratore o alla società; all’uno o all’altra a seconda dei casi);
    • eventuali detrazioni e /o limitazioni (es. perdite fiscali);
    • l’importo massimo indennizzabile;
    • un’eventuale franchigia;
    • la procedura d’indennizzo (es. termini per la richiesta, procedura di composizione, situazioni particolari, etc.).

    Si tratta di aspetti importantissimi, che non devono essere sottovalutati. È chiaro, ad esempio, che non disciplinare adeguatamente la procedura d’indennizzo rischia di vanificare tutto il lavoro fatto prima.

    Infine, dovranno essere previsti strumenti idonei al fine di assicurare la tutela effettiva del compratore. Tra questi, quelli più tradizionali sono:

    • la fideiussione;
    • il contratto autonomo di garanzia;
    • il deposito fiduciario («escrow»);
    • la dilazione di pagamento;
    • il meccanismo di «earn out»;
    • il c.d. «price adjustment»;
    • la lettera di patronage;
    • il pegno e/o l’ipoteca.

    Si tratta di strumenti tutti più o meno largamente utilizzati nella pratica, che presentano ciascuno dei pro e dei contro.

    Qui, tuttavia, vogliamo occuparci di un nuovo strumento di natura assicurativa, a cui si sta cominciando a fare ricorso negli ultimi tempi: le c.d. «Polizze Warranty & Indemnity».

    Con una polizza W&I, in pratica, l’assicuratore, a fronte del pagamento di un premio, assume su di sé il rischio derivante dalla violazione delle dichiarazioni contenute in un contratto di M&A.

    Presupposto fondamentale, ovviamente, è che la violazione derivi da fatti antecedenti al closing e non noti in quel momento (e, quindi, non evidenziati dalla due diligence effettuata).

    La polizza può essere sottoscritta dal compratore (buyer side) o dal venditore (seller side). Di regola è preferita la prima soluzione. Tali polizze W&I presentano numerosi vantaggi:

    • si ottiene una garanzia a fronte di un venditore non sempre disponibile ad impegnarsi contrattualmente;
    • la polizza generalmente non prevede l’ipotesi di regresso nei confronti del venditore, salvo il caso di dolo, per cui il venditore è integralmente liberato;
    • è possibile ottenere un massimale maggiore di quello previsto nel contratto di compravendita;
    • analogamente, la copertura può essere prevista per un periodo più lungo;
    • si facilitano le relazioni con il venditore, specie nel caso ci siano più venditori ed alcuni di essi restino nella società, magari occupando un posto nel Consiglio d’Amministrazione;
    • si facilita notevolmente il processo d’indennizzo, specie nel caso in cui ci siano più venditori, magari persone fisiche;
    • il compratore riesce ad avere una maggiore certezza di solvibilità.

    Il costo della polizza potrebbe essere condiviso tra le parti, eventualmente con uno sconto del prezzo, che il venditore potrebbe essere disposto a concedere tenuto conto del fatto che non dovrà rilasciare altre garanzie e potrà godere immediatamente dei frutti della vendita.

    Il premio è normalmente compreso tra l’1% ed il 2% del limite d’indennizzo previsto (con un premio minimo).

    Attualmente, i limiti principali di questo strumento paiono essere, oltre al prezzo, che rende lo strumento adatto principalmente ad operazioni di importo non piccolo, la franchigia standard normalmente prevista, pari all’1% dell’Enterprise Value del Target, riducibile allo 0,5% a fronte di un innalzamento del premio. Da tenere presente inoltre che la polizza W&I implica la revisione della due diligence da parte della compagnia, che può tradursi in un intervento attivo nella negoziazione delle garanzie.

    A parte ciò, lo strumento è da considerare attentamente: in presenza di situazioni particolarmente complesse, potrebbe rappresentare la giusta soluzione per sbloccare situazioni di stallo negoziale e rendere più agevoli negoziazioni tra investitori professionali e PMI.

    The procedure to incorporate a foreign owned company in Spain is, in principle, easy and straight forward, however it is necessary to take into account certain new requirements derived from the tax and the anti-money laundering regulations, which could cause long delays in the incorporation process, even to EU and US companies, if they are not well advised and managed from the beginning of the procedure.

    The first step consist in collecting information about the foreign shareholder, in order to be able to prove its legal existence and activities: the foreign shareholder(s) will have to grant before a Notary Public in its country of residence a power of attorney authorising somebody in Spain to obtain its tax identification number (“NIE”), and also represent it before the Spanish notary when signing the deed of incorporation. In case the foreign shareholder is an individual person, the NIE should be applied for before the Spanish police or the Spanish Consulate at the country where the investor lives.

    If the shareholder is a corporation, apart from the Power of Attorney, it will have to obtain a certificate from its Companies’ Registry or Chamber of Commerce, stating its legal existence and main characteristics. This document is called “good standing certificate” (in the UK and US), “K-bis” (in France), “KvK” (in the Netherlands) or “visura” (in Italy). These two documents, the Power of Attorney mentioned in the above paragraph and the certificate from the Companies’ Registry, will have to be Apostilled or legalized by the correspondent Ministry, and Sworn translated into Spanish. Please note that we use to draft bilingual powers of attorney in order to avoid its sworn translation.

    The foreign shareholder will have to prove that its income is obtained from legal activities in order to be able to open a bank account in the name of the new company. The main document to prove this could be the Corporate or the Personal Income Tax return filed in its country of residence, but there could be other means, especially in case of individual persons.

    In case of a corporate shareholder, it will be necessary as well to declare, in principle through a public deed granted in Spain, who are the individual persons who, directly or through other companies, will hold more than a 25% interest in the new company to be incorporated. In case nobody holds more than a 25% (i.e. because there are 5 individual shareholders, holding each of them a 20%), it is declared that the effective control of the new company corresponds to its director.

    At this stage, it is also necessary to mention that the person(s) who will be the director(s) of the new company, in case they are foreigners, will also need to obtain their personal “NIE”. The NIE should be applied for before the Spanish police (this could be done by a proxy duly authorised though a Power of Attorney granted by the foreign director) or before the Spanish Consulate nearest to the city where the investor lives. In order to be a director of a Spanish company it is not necessary to be a shareholder, nor to have residence and work permit in Spain (provided the foreign director does not live in Spain).

    Meanwhile the necessary documents (Powers of Attorney, Companies’ Registry certificate, etc.) are being prepared by the foreign shareholder, the lawyer in Spain will apply for the new company’s name. It is advisable to point out that generic or usual names are not available quite often, therefore it is necessary to think in original names. Three different names could be applied for simultaneously.

    The drafting of the company’s Articles of Association or By Laws could be very quick, except if the company is going to have several shareholders and they wish specific clauses. In this case, it is also advisable to draft a Shareholders Agreement. The Shareholders’ Agreement could just contain some basic rules on dedication, compensation, non-competition, etc. and some more sophisticated rules on the sale of shares (tag along and drag along rights). As regards the By-Laws, they should mention the company’s name, its activity or activities, address in Spain –which cannot be just a P.O. Box-, share capital, number of shares and its face value, and starting date for the fiscal year, among other standard clauses.

    The management of the company could be organized through a sole director, two directors who could act jointly or separately, and in case there are more than three directors, they should organize themselves through a Board of Directors, being usual in this case to appoint a C.E.O. In order to be a director it is not necessary to be a shareholder. Under Spanish laws, the director(s) could be held liable for some company’s debts under certain circumstances which are legally defined. For this reason, it is necessary that the directors formally accept their appointment (personally appearing before the Notary or through a Power of Attorney).

    Before the incorporation, it will be necessary that either the new company’s director (the person to be appointed) or the representative of the corporate shareholder appears personally before the bank where the company will have its first bank account and signs the correspondent documents (KYC regulation). Once the bank account is opened, the shareholder will have to send a bank transfer for the new company’s share capital. In Spain, the minimum share capital for a limited company (S.L.) is Euros 3.000, while for a “Sociedad Anónima” (S.A.) it is Euros 60.000, but only 25% should be paid off at the incorporation moment. It is interesting to note that contributions to the share capital could be made in cash – which is the most common operation, especially at the incorporation – or in kind, with any type of assets: real estate, machinery, goods, trademarks, etc. The money for the share capital should be sent to the new company’s bank account from an account owned by the shareholder (or from each account owned by each shareholder, should they be several ones), not by any other different person. Once the Spanish bank receives the transfer, it will issue a certificate, which is necessary in order to incorporate the company.

    Once all the documents are ready, it is possible within very few days (almost immediately) to make the appointment with the Notary and sign the public deed of incorporation. This can be done at any notary in Spain, not being necessary that the notary practises at the same city where the company will have its corporate address. In order to summarize, the list of the necessary documents is:

    • Power(s) of Attorney granted by the foreign shareholder(s), apostilled and sworn translated.
    • Certificate regarding the legal existence of the foreign shareholder (only if it is a corporation), apostilled and sworn translated.
    • Statement on who are the last individual shareholders holding more than 25% interest in the new company, directly or indirectly (only in case of corporate shareholders).
    • NIE of the foreign shareholder(s).
    • NIE of the new company’s director(s), should they be a foreigners.
    • Certificate for the new company’s name.
    • Articles of Association.
    • Bank certificate regarding the contribution to the new company’s share capital.

    The deed of incorporation is signed by the proxy (or the individual shareholder(s), should they prefer to personally appear before the notary) before the chosen public notary, being also necessary to sign an official form to report the foreign investment to a public registry depending on the Spanish Ministry of Finance.

    Once the deed of incorporation is signed, the next steps consist in applying before the tax authorities to obtain the new company’s tax number (NIF / CIF) and filing the deed of incorporation before the Companies’ Registry. Some banks do allow new companies to operate once they have the NIF (which could be 2-3 days after the incorporation), while others request to wait until the deed of incorporation is filed at the Companies’ Registry (2-3 weeks).

    An estimation of the necessary time to complete all the procedure is 30-45 days, but of course the main delay is related to speed of the foreign investor in obtaining the necessary documents.

    Please note that if you wish to incorporate a foreign owned company in Spain it is always necessary to seek specific professional advice, as each case is different and regulations and the application of such regulations vary from time to time. The above article just explains the main steps and requirements for the incorporation of a company.

    In all M&A operations one of the issues that deserves special attention as regards its analysis, ascertainment and negotiation is the tax liabilities. Even though the parties could agree on the amount of such contingencies, to negotiate the possible guarantees that the seller should grant in order to protect the buyer from a possible claim by the tax authorities, the term during which the guarantees should be in force, and to agree on the communication mechanisms between the parties (buyer and seller) and the legal defense strategies if such claim from the tax authorities arises, requires substantial negotiation efforts.

    When the acquisition operation is formalized not through the purchase of shares, but through the purchase of the assets that form a business unit, the Spanish General Tax Law (“Ley General Tributaria” or “LGT”) provides a mechanism which implies an exception to the general principle provided by article 42 of the same law. Article 42 of LGT establishes the joint liability of the purchaser of a business unit for the tax liabilities of the selling company (“tax liability derived from company’s succession”). That is, in principle, according to article 42 of the LGT “the persons or entities that continue by any mean in the ownership or exercise of economic activities (the buyers) will be jointly liable with the previous owner for the tax liabilities derived from the exercise of such economic activities incurred by such previous owner”.

    However, the joint tax liability of the buyer could be limited through the application before the tax authorities of the tax certificate regulated by article 175.2 of the LGT. This certificate should be applied for by the prospective buyer, with the authorization of the present owner (the seller), and, once issued, the tax liability of the buyer becomes limited to the debts, penalties and liabilities mentioned in the certificate. If the certificate is issued without mentioning any amount, or if the tax authorities do not issue it within a three months term from the application’s date, the applicant (the buyer) will be released from any tax liability derived from company’s succession.

    The tax certificate for succession purposes includes the main taxes, as Value Added Tax and Corporate Income Tax, and can include as well debts derived from the withholding taxes on employees’ payroll, which in case of companies with a big number of employees could be of an outstanding amount. However, the buyer’s joint liability for salaries, related payroll amounts and social security contributions cannot be limited by such certificate, and such liability will always be joint with the business unit seller’s liability.

    The application for the tax certificate should be filed before the acquisition of the business unit is completed, even if the issuance of the certificate takes place later tan the closing date (but of course, it is wiser to not close the acquisition before having the certificate). The certificate’s validity lasts for one year, as regards periodical tax obligations (for example, Value Added Tax, Corporate Income Tax and withholding taxes on salaries) and for three months as regards non periodical tax obligations.

    It is very important to apply for the right tax certificate (“certificate for succession purposes according to article 175.2 of LGT”), and to not make a mistake and apply, for example, for the certificate regarding having fulfilled all tax obligations (“certificado de estar al corriente de las obligaciones fiscales”). Case law is plenty of judgments where a buyer applied for the wrong certificate, which showed no liabilities, and later on such buyer has been sentenced to pay the tax liabilities incurred by the previous owner of the business unit.

    When M&A transactions in Brazil are deemed not successful by the investor the main reason for underperformance is generally the existence of debts or fiscal/labor contingencies materialized higher than evaluated, or unexpected material adverse changes.

    The reasons for overlooking the debts and fiscal/labor contingencies is often the rush to close the investment. Either for avoiding a competitor to acquire the target, or to keep the leading position of the market share, for certain cases, the buyers may have not paid proper attention to what their advisors had to say before closing the deal.

    1. Local legal advisors

    The legal advisors may take, for the perception of the executives eager to complete an acquisition, a bit longer than expected to round up facts and properly report the risks found. The perception for this lower pace to reach out the conclusions may differ from the executives due to the delay of seller to provide documents or clarify questions raised.

    Slowing down a bit to the benefit of certainty is a sound advice.

    Experienced Brazilian advisors shall always be included among the teams. Their knowledge on facing subtle change of applicable laws, rules or predominant court decisions is certainly valuable for better understanding the status of the target and the ways to mitigate risks.

    Certain facts may not seem at first as significant risk for first timers dealing with Brazilian matters. However, the advisors do have a reason to raise the point and should be properly heard. Examples such as absence of one single clear certificate issued by a government department or a missing report on disposal of solid residues, that may not seem a big issue, could turn into a risk of suspension of activities of a plant.

    An audit company is usually hired to identify tax and labor contingencies, but the audit company does not evaluate nor assess the numbers, only the maximum exposure. The legal advisors are in charge of the risk assessment and determination of the estimate of the contingencies. It is up to the buyer to accept and negotiate the relevant coverage for such contingencies.

    Seller may not give full details of all issues of the target at first. It is the role of the advisors to investigate, request further documents and clarification to bring matters that affect the business to buyer’s attention. In a good faith scenario, seller would be willing to discuss the matters, to avoid future disputes or frustrations to buyer.

    1. Debt

    Charges, penalties, interests and other compensations in financial operations turns these contracts full of minor details and very complex in anywhere in the world. Brazilian contracts are not exception. That is the reason why a proper assessment of the financial operations and obtain the real picture of the debt and related costs.

    As usual, attention to change of control provisions are also relevant to mitigate risks – absence of consent or non-compliance of the required steps prior to closing the operation can cause acceleration of the financial operation and trigger cross-default provisions in other contracts that can also lead to acceleration of the financial operations.

    1. Tax/labor contingencies

    Calculation and estimate of tax contingencies are specific for each tax and requires knowledge and a sound judgment to estimate exposure and appoint measures to cover the risks. Same level of care applies to labor-related contingencies.

    Tax and labor matters are usually the most relevant risks to be observed in a Brazilian target. Complexity of regulation and the amount of obligations to fulfill makes these points significant.

    1. Material adverse change

    Material adverse change clauses – “MAC Clauses” – are contractual provisions to mitigate negative effects or a substantial change to the parties. These provisions are admitted in Brazilian law, in view the M&A transaction documents are executed in good faith and respecting the parties’ freedom to commit to certain obligations.

    Needless to say, the MAC Clauses should contain crystal clear language, with objective description of the facts, well defined applicable time period, cause and consequences duly described for proper and easy execution. If not, determination of MAC Clause event shall end on a dispute.

    In the absence of MAC Clauses, Brazilian Civil Code contemplates the ability to any party in a continuous contractual relation to seek for the termination of the contract, by virtue of extraordinary and unpredictable facts, in the event such party is affected with excessive onus and generates extreme advantage to another party. Determination whether the parties were subject to extraordinary and unpredictable facts would depend nevertheless on ruling by a judge or arbitrator, as provided in the acquisition documents.

    1. Guarantees and Indemnification

    For avoidance of future problems, the buyer should obtain strong and prompt executable guarantees. The (a) ability to withhold payments, (b) deposit of part of the purchase price in escrow account with clear rules for withdrawing the escrow amount are most likely measures to ensure a prompt indemnification. From previous experiences, other guarantees like pledge of shares, personal guarantee, lien or even chattel mortgage over real property are harder to execute and indemnify the prejudiced party.

    De minimis clauses (minimum amount for a party to be indemnified – if not reached, the prejudiced party is not going to receive any indemnification) or basket (limitation of indemnifiable amount) are additions to the provisions for guarantees also acceptable for Brazilian M&A transactions.

    The experienced advisors will make a difference to assist on the drafting of these provisions and to reflect what the parties discussed and agreed on the table.

    1. Break-up Fees

    A conscious buyer will certainly avoid the risk of incurring in heavy break-up fees, with proper assessment provided by competent advisors of what may happen until closing. Nevertheless, in certain cases, even after signing a binding document, it might make sense paying a break-up fee even if substantial rather than entering into a risky transaction.

    Recent Brazilian M&A transactions have included break-up fees, applicable in case of the regulatory restrictions are too high or in case the buyer gives up the acquisition. The highest break-up fee known was included in an offer made by Paper Excellence (member of Asia Pulp and Paper, based in Indonesia) was BRL 4 billion (over USD 1 billion or around EUR 900 million). The deal was not closed as another bidder had better credit check (even proposing lower break-up fees).

    In 2015, Ânima paid BRL 46 million (around USD 12.5 million or EUR 10.6 million) of break-up fees to Whitney do Brasil – education sector – for giving up the acquisition due to changes on students’ public financing rules. In 2018, Ultragaz paid BRL 280 million (around USD 75 million or EUR 64 million) in break-up fees to Liquigás, due to the veto by the Brazilian antitrust authority for the operation.

    1. Recommendations

    In this regard, the recommendations to avoid the referred reasons for a not satisfactory failure in M&A transactions in Brazil are:

    • Rely on local advisors: make sure that local Brazilian experts are included in the advisory team – the proper Brazilian legal, accountancy, tax and business experts can provide you with the necessary and valuable information for the proper decision-making process;
    • Listen to what the local advisors have to say: some matters raised may not seem to harm the deal, but it is important to let your advisor give you the full explanation and the reasons why the advisor is concerned about the topic. The advisor has a reason to bring the matters to discussion;
    • On the buy-side, ensure the existence of proper guarantees – feasible and enforceable – for prompt reimbursement of the losses, instead of discussions or long disputes;
    • Be very attentive in the preparation and discussion of the indemnification, procedure for indemnifying a prejudiced party, accommodating the business negotiation and the coverage to the risks explained by the advisors;
    • MAC Clauses shall be clear, precise and objective; and
    • However hard may be, it might make sense paying a break-up fee instead of completing a risky transaction.

    The author of this article is Paulo Yamaguchi

    Roberto Luzi Crivellini

    Aree di attività

    • Arbitrato
    • Distribuzione
    • Commercio internazionale
    • Contenzioso
    • Real estate
    Contatta Roberto

    Scrivi a Roberto





      Leggi la privacy policy di Legalmondo.
      Questo sito è protetto da reCAPTCHA e si applicano le Norme sulla privacy e i Termini di servizio di Google.

      Brazil- M&A and Agency Agreements

      20 Agosto 2019

      • Brasile
      • Agenzia
      • Diritto societario
      • M&A

      This week the Interim Injunction Judge of the Netherlands Commercial Court ruled in summary proceedings, following a video hearing, in a case on a EUR 169 million transaction where the plaintiff argued that the final transaction had been concluded and the defendant should proceed with the deal.

      This in an – intended – transaction where the letter of intent stipulates that a EUR 30 million break fee is due when no final agreement is signed.

      In addition to ruling on this question of construction of an agreement under Dutch law, the judge also had to rule on the break fee if no agreement was concluded and whether it should be amended or reduced because of the current Coronavirus / Covid-19 crisis.

      English Language proceedings in a Dutch state court, the Netherlands Commercial Court (NCC)

      The case is not just interesting because of the way contract formation is construed under Dutch law and application of concepts of force majeure, unforeseen circumstances and amendment of agreements under the concepts of reasonableness and fairness as well as mitigation of contractual penalties, but also interesting because it was ruled on by a judge of the English language chamber of the Netherlands Commercial Court (NCC).

      This new (2019) Dutch state court offers a relatively fast and cost-effective alternative for international commercial litigation, and in particular arbitration, in a neutral jurisdiction with professional judges selected for both their experience in international disputes and their command of English.

      The dispute regarding the construction of an M&A agreement under Dutch law in an international setting

      The facts are straightforward. Parties (located in New York, USA and the Netherlands) dispute whether final agreement on the EUR 169 million transaction has been reached but do agree a break fee of €30 million in case of non-signature of the final agreement was agreed. However, in addition to claiming there is no final agreement, the defendant also argues that the break fee – due when there is no final agreement – should be reduced or changed due to the coronavirus crisis.

      As to contract formation it must be noted that Dutch law allows broad leeway on how to communicate what may or may not be an offer or acceptance. The standard is what a reasonable person in the same circumstances would have understood their communications to mean.  Here, the critical fact is that the defendant did not sign the so-called “Transaction Agreement”. The letter of intent’s binary mechanism (either execute and deliver the paperwork for the Transaction Agreement by the agreed date or pay a EUR 30 million fee) may not have been an absolute requirement for contract formation (under Dutch law) but has significant evidentiary weight. In M&A practice – also under Dutch law – with which these parties are thoroughly familiar with, this sets a very high bar for  concluding a contract was agreed other than by explicit written agreement. So, parties may generally comfortably rely on what they have agreed on in writing with the assistance of their advisors.

      The communications relied on by claimant in this case did not clear the very high bar to assume that despite the mechanism of the letter of intent and the lack of a signed Transaction Agreement there still was a binding agreement. In particular attributing the other party’s advisers’ statements and/or conduct to the contracting party they represent did not work for the claimant in this case as per the verdict nothing suggested that the advisers would be handling everything, including entering into the agreement.

      Court order for actual performance of a – deemed – agreement on an M&A deal?

      The Interim Injunction Judge finds that there is not a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits so as to justify an interim measure ordering the defendant to actually perform its obligations under the disputed Transaction Agreement (payment of EUR 169 million and take the claimant’s 50% stake in an equestrian show-jumping business).

      Enforcement of the break fee despite “Coronavirus”?

      Failing the conclusion of an agreement, there was still another question to answer as the letter of intent mechanism re the break fee as such was not disputed. Should the Court enforce the full EUR 30 million fee in the current COVID-19 circumstances? Or should the fee’s effects be modified, mitigated or reduced in some way, or  the fee agreement should even be dissolved?

      Unforeseen circumstances, reasonableness and fairness

      The Interim Injunction Judge rules that the coronavirus crisis may be an unforeseen circumstance, but it is not of such a nature that, according to standards of reasonableness and fairness, the plaintiff cannot expect the break fee obligation to remain unchanged. The purpose of the break fee is to encourage parties to enter into the transaction and attribute / share risks between them. As such the fee limits the exposure of the parties. Payment of the fee is a quick way out of the obligation to pay the purchase price of EUR 169 million and the risks of keeping the target company financially afloat. If financially the coronavirus crisis turns out less disastrous than expected, the fee of EUR 30 million may seem high, but that is what the parties already considered reasonable when they waived their right to invoke the unreasonableness of the fee. The claim for payment of the EUR 30 million break fee is therefore upheld by the Interim Injunction Judge.

      Applicable law and the actual practice of it by the courts

      The relevant three articles are in this case articles 6:94, 6:248 and 6:258 of the Dutch Civil Code. They relate to the mitigation of contractual penalties, unforeseen circumstances and amendment of the agreement under the tenets of reasonableness and fairness. Under Dutch law the courts must with all three exercise caution. Contracts must generally be enforced as agreed. The parties’ autonomy is deemed paramount and the courts’ attitude is deferential. All three articles use language stating, essentially, that interference by the courts in the contract’s operation is allowed only to avoid an “unacceptable” impact, as assessed under standards of reasonableness and fairness.

      There is at this moment of course no well- established case law on COVID-19. However, commentators have provided guidance that is very helpful to think through the issues. Recently a “share the pain” approach has been advocated by a renowned law Professor, Tjittes, who focuses on preserving the parties’ contractual equilibrium in the current circumstances. This is, in the Court’s analysis, the right way to look at the agreement here. There is no evidence in the record suggesting that the parties contemplated or discussed the full and exceptional impact of the COVID-19 crisis. The crisis may or may not be unprovided for.  However, the court rules in the current case there is no need to rule on this issue. Even if the crisis is unprovided for, there is no support in the record for the proposition that the crisis makes it unacceptable for the claimant to demand strict performance by the defendant. The reasons are straightforward.

      The break fee allocates risk and expresses commitment and caps exposure. The harm to the business may be substantial and structural, or it may be short-term and minimal. Either way, the best “share the pain” solution, to preserve the contractual equilibrium in the agreement, is for the defendant to pay the fee as written in the letter of intent. This allocates a defined risk to one party, and actual or potential risks to the other party. Reducing the break fee in any business downturn, the fee’s express purpose – comfort and confidence to get the deal done – would not be accomplished and be derived in precisely the circumstances in which it should be robust. As a result, the Court therefore orders to pay the full EUR 30 million fee. So the break fee stipulation works under the circumstances without mitigation because of the Corona outbreak.

      The Netherlands Commercial Court, continued

      As already indicated above, the case is interesting because the verdict has been rendered by a Dutch state court in English and the proceedings where also in English. Not because of a special privilege granted in a specific case but based on an agreement between parties with a proper choice of forum clause for this court. In addition to the benefit to of having an English forum without mandatorily relying on either arbitration or choosing an anglophone court, it also has the benefit of it being a state court with the application of the regular Dutch civil procedure law, which is well known by it’s practitioners and reduces the risk of surprises of a procedural nature.  As it is as such also a “normal” state court, there is the right to appeal and particularly effective under Dutch law access to expedited proceeding as was also the case in the example referred to above. This means a regular procedure with full application of all evidentiary rules may still follow, overturning or confirming this preliminary verdict in summary proceedings.

      Novel technology in proceedings

      Another first or at least a novel application is that all submissions were made in eNCC, a document upload procedure for the NCC. Where the introduction of electronic communication and litigation in the Dutch court system has failed spectacularly, the innovations are now all following in quick order and quite effective. As a consequence of the Coronavirus outbreak several steps have been quickly tried in practice and thereafter formally set up. At present this – finally – includes a secure email-correspondence system between attorneys and the courts.

      And, also by special order of the Court in this present case, given the current COVID-19 restrictions the matter was dealt with at a public videoconference hearing on 22 April 2020 and the case was set for judgment on 29 April 2020 and published on 30 April 2020.

      Even though it is a novel application, it is highly likely that similar arrangements will continue even after expiry of current emergency measures. In several Dutch courts videoconference hearings are applied on a voluntary basis and is expected that the arrangements will be formalized.

      Eligibility of cases for the Netherlands Commercial Court

      Of more general interest are the requirements for matters that may be submitted to NCC:

      • the Amsterdam District Court or Amsterdam Court of Appeal has jurisdiction
      • the parties have expressly agreed in writing that proceedings will be in English before the NCC (the ‘NCC agreement’)
      • the action is a civil or commercial matter within the parties’ autonomy
      • the matter concerns an international dispute.

      The NCC agreement can be recorded in a clause, either before or after the dispute arises. The Court even recommends specific wording:

      “All disputes arising out of or in connection with this agreement will be resolved by the Amsterdam District Court following proceedings in English before the Chamber for International Commercial Matters (“Netherlands Commercial Court” or “NCC District Court”), to the exclusion of the jurisdiction of any other courts. An action for interim measures, including protective measures, available under Dutch law may be brought in the NCC’s Court in Summary Proceedings (CSP) in proceedings in English. Any appeals against NCC or CSP judgments will be submitted to the Amsterdam Court of Appeal’s Chamber for International Commercial Matters (“Netherlands Commercial Court of Appeal” or “NCCA”).”

      The phrase “to the exclusion of the jurisdiction of any other courts” is included in light of the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements. It is not mandatory to include it of course and parties may decide not to exclude the jurisdiction of other courts or make other arrangements they consider appropriate. The only requirement being that such arrangements comply with the rules of jurisdiction and contract. Please note that choice of court agreements are exclusive unless the parties have “expressly provided” or “agreed” otherwise (as per the Hague Convention and Recast Brussels I Regulation).

      Parties in a pending case before another Dutch court or chamber may request that their case be referred to NCC District Court or NCC Court of Appeal. One of the requirements is to agree on a clause that takes the case to the NCC and makes English the language of the proceedings. The NCC recommends using this language:

      We hereby agree that all disputes in connection with the case [name parties], which is currently pending at the *** District Court (case number ***), will be resolved by the Amsterdam District Court following proceedings in English before the Chamber for International Commercial Matters (“Netherlands Commercial Court” or ”NCC District Court). Any action for interim measures, including protective measures, available under Dutch law will be brought in the NCC’s Court in Summary Proceedings (CSP) in proceedings in English. Any appeals against NCC or CSP judgments will be submitted to the Amsterdam Court of Appeal’s Chamber for International Commercial Matters (“Netherlands Commercial Court of Appeal” or “NCC Court of Appeal”).

      To request a referral, a motion must be made before the other chamber or court where the action is pending, stating the request and contesting jurisdiction (if the case is not in Amsterdam) on the basis of a choice-of-court agreement (see before).

      Additional arrangements in the proceedings before the Netherlands Commercial Court

      Before or during the proceedings, parties can also agree special arrangements in a customized NCC clause or in another appropriate manner. Such arrangements may include matters such as the following:

      • the law applicable to the substantive dispute
      • the appointment of a court reporter for preparing records of hearings and the costs of preparing those records
      • an agreement on evidence that departs from the general rules
      • the disclosure of confidential documents
      • the submission of a written witness statement prior to the witness examination
      • the manner of taking witness testimony
      • the costs of the proceedings.

      Visiting lawyers and typical course of the procedure

      All acts of process are in principle carried out by a member of the Dutch Bar. Member of the Bar in an EU or EEA Member State or Switzerland may work in accordance with Article 16e of the Advocates Act (in conjunction with a member of the Dutch Bar). Other visiting lawyers may be allowed to speak at any hearing.

      The proceedings will typically follow the below steps:

      • Submitting the initiating document by the plaintiff (summons or request as per Dutch law)
      • Assigned to three judges and a senior law clerk.
      • The defendant submits its defence statement.
      • Case management conference or motion hearing (e.g. also in respect of preliminary issues such as competence, applicable law etc.) where parties may present their arguments.
      • Judgment on motions: the court rules on the motions. Testimony, expert appointment, either at this stage or earlier or later.
      • The court may allow the parties to submit further written statements.
      • Hearing: the court interviews the parties and allows them to present their arguments. The court may enquire whether the dispute could be resolved amicably and, where appropriate, assist the parties in a settlement process. If appropriate, the court may discuss with the parties whether it would be advisable to submit part or all of the dispute to a mediator. At the end of the hearing, the court will discuss with the parties what the next steps should be.
      • Verdict: this may be a final judgment on the claims or an interim judgment ordering one or more parties to produce evidence, allowing the parties to submit written submissions on certain aspects of the case, appointing one or more experts or taking other steps.

      Continuous updates, online resources Netherlands Commercial Court

      As a final note the English language website of the Netherlands Commercial Court provides ample information on procedure and practical issues and is updated with a high frequence. Under current circumstance even at a higher pace. In particular for practitioners it’s recommended to regularly consult the website. https://www.rechtspraak.nl/English/NCC/Pages/default.aspx

      Le operazioni di acquisizione (M&A) in Italia, nella maggior parte dei casi, vengono realizzate attraverso acquisto di partecipazioni (‘share deal’) o di azienda o ramo d’azienda (‘asset deal’). Per ragioni principalmente fiscali sono più frequenti gli share deal rispetto agli asset deal, nonostante l’asset deal consenta una migliore limitazione dei rischi per l’acquirente. Vedremo le principali differenze tra share deal e asset deal in termini di rischi e di rapporti tra venditore e acquirente.

      Preferenza per operazioni di M&A mediante acquisto di partecipazioni (‘share deal’) rispetto ad acquisto di azienda o ramo d’azienda (‘asset deal’) nel mercato italiano

      In Italia, le operazione di acquisizione (M&A) vengono realizzate, nella maggior parte dei casi, attraverso acquisto di partecipazioni (‘share deal’) o di azienda o ramo d’azienda (‘asset deal’). Altre modalità, come la fusione, sono meno frequenti.

      Con l’acquisto di quote o azioni della società acquisita (‘share deal’) l’acquirente acquisisce, indirettamente, l’intero patrimonio aziendale (attività, passività, rapporti) e quindi si fa carico di tutti i rischi relativi alla precedente gestione della società.

      Con l’acquisto dell’azienda o di un ramo d’azienda (‘asset deal’) l’acquirente acquisisce un insieme di beni e rapporti organizzati per l’esercizio dell’impresa (immobili, impianti, dipendenti, contratti, crediti, debiti, ecc.). Il vantaggio dell’asset deal risiede nella possibilità per le parti di definire il perimetro del trasferimento e, quindi, per l’acquirente, di limitare i rischi legali dell’operazione.

      Nonostante questo vantaggio, la maggior parte delle operazioni di acquisizione in Italia avviene attraverso acquisto di partecipazioni. Nel 2018 gli acquisti di partecipazioni (azioni o quote) sono state circa 78.400, mentre le cessioni di azienda sono state circa 35.900 (fonte: www.notariato.it/it/news/dati-statistici-notarili-anno-2018). E va osservato che il dato delle cessioni d’azienda comprende anche le aziende di piccole o piccolissime dimensioni esercitate da imprenditori individuali, per le quali l’alternativa dello share deal (pur praticabile, attraverso il conferimento dell’azienda in una newco e la cessione delle partecipazioni nella newco) non è percorribile in concreto per ragioni di costo.

      Costi fiscali delle operazioni di acquisizione (M&A) in Italia

      La principale ragione della preferenza per l’acquisto di partecipazione (‘share deal’) rispetto all’acquisto di azienda (‘asset deal’) risiede nei costi fiscali dell’operazione. Vediamo quali sono, in linea generale.

      Nell’acquisto di partecipazioni, le imposte dirette a carico del venditore vengono calcolate sulla plusvalenza, secondo le seguenti percentuali:

      • se il venditore è una società di capitali (s.p.a.; s.r.l.; s.a.p.a.) l’aliquota è del 24% della plusvalenza. Ma, a determinate condizioni, si applica il regime della c.d. PEX (participation exemption) con applicazione dell’aliquota del 24% solo sul 5% della plusvalenza.
      • Se il venditore è una persona fisica l’aliquota sulla plusvalenza è del 26%.
      • Se il venditore è una società di persone (s.s.; s.n.c..; s.a.s.) la plusvalenza è integralmente imponibile, tuttavia al ricorrere di determinate condizioni, l’imponibilità è limitata al 60% dell’ammontare della plusvalenza. In entrambi i casi l’aliquota applicabile è quella marginale riferita a ciascun socio a cui il reddito viene imputato per trasparenza.

      Nell’acquisto di partecipazioni si applica l’imposta di registro, normalmente a carico dell’acquirente, di euro 200.

      Anche nell’acquisto di azienda, le imposte dirette a carico del venditore vengono calcolate sulla plusvalenza. Se il venditore è una società di capitali, l’aliquota è del 24% della plusvalenza. Se il venditore è una società di persone (con soci persone fisiche) o un imprenditore individuale, le aliquote dipendono dal reddito del venditore.

      Nell’acquisto di azienda si applicano le imposte indirette, normalmente a carico dell’acquirente, calcolate sulla parte del prezzo attribuibile ai singoli beni trasferiti. Il prezzo è il risultato delle attività trasferite detratte le passività trasferite. Le percentuali sono diverse a seconda del tipo di beni. In generale:

      • ai beni mobili si applica una imposta di registro del 3%;
      • all’avviamento si applica una imposta di registro del 3%;
      • ai fabbricati si applica una imposta di registro del 9% (e imposte ipotecarie e catastali in misura fissa di euro 50 ciascuna);
      • ai terreni si applica una imposta di registro tra il 9 e il 12% (a seconda dell’acquirente) e imposte ipotecarie e catastali in misura fissa di euro 50 ciascuna.

      Nel caso in cui l’azienda sia composta da beni soggetti ad aliquote diverse e le parti abbiano pattuito un corrispettivo unico, senza distinzione in merito al valore attribuibile ai singoli beni, l’imposta deve calcolarsi applicando all’unico corrispettivo pattuito l’aliquota più elevata.

      Va sottolineato che l’Agenzia delle Entrate può sottoporre ad accertamento il valore attribuito dalle parti ai beni immobili e all’avviamento, con conseguente rischio di applicazione di maggiori imposte.

      Share deal e asset deal: rischi e responsabilità verso i terzi

      Nell’acquisto di quote o azioni (‘share deal’) l’acquirente si fa carico, indirettamente, di tutti i rischi relativi alla precedente gestione della società.

      Nell’acquisto dell’azienda o di un ramo d’azienda (‘asset deal’), invece, le parti possono decidere il perimetro del trasferimento (quali beni e rapporti) così stabilendo, nei rapporti tra loro, i rischi che l’acquirente assume.

      Vi sono però alcune norme, che le parti non possono derogare, relative ai rapporti con i terzi, che influiscono significativamente sui rischi per il venditore e l’acquirente e quindi sulla negoziazione dell’accordo tra le parti. Le principali sono le seguenti.

      • Lavoratori dipendenti: il rapporto di lavoro continua con l’acquirente dell’azienda. Il venditore e l’acquirente sono obbligati in solido per tutti i crediti del lavoratore al momento del trasferimento (art. 2112 c.c.).
      • Debiti: il venditore è obbligato al pagamento di tutti i debiti sino alla data del trasferimento. L’acquirente è obbligato per i debiti che risultano dai libri contabili (art. 2560 c.c.).
      • Debiti e responsabilità fiscali: il venditore è obbligato al pagamento di debiti, imposte e sanzioni fiscali relative al periodo sino alla data del trasferimento.
        L’acquirente, in aggiunta all’obbligo relativo ai debiti fiscali che risultano dai libri contabili (art. 2560 c.c.), è responsabile per le imposte e sanzioni, anche se non risultano dai libri contabili, con i seguenti limiti (art. 14 D.lgs. 472/1997):
      • beneficio della preventiva escussione del venditore;
      • fino al valore dell’azienda o del ramo d’azienda acquistato;
      • per le imposte e sanzioni non ancora contestate, la responsabilità riguarda solo quelle relative all’anno della vendita dell’azienda e ai due precedenti; per le imposte e sanzioni relative al periodo anteriore ai due anni precedenti la vendita dell’azienda, la responsabilità riguarda solo quelle contestate entro tale periodo;
      • nei limiti del debito risultante alla data di trasferimento dagli atti degli uffici dell’amministrazione finanziaria. L’Agenzia delle Entrate è tenuta a rilasciare un certificato sull’esistenza di contestazioni in corso e sui debiti. Il certificato negativo, o non rilasciato entro 40 giorni dalla richiesta, libera l’acquirente da responsabilità.
      • Contratti: le parti possono scegliere quali contratti trasferire. Rispetto ai contratti trasferiti, l’acquirente subentra, anche senza il consenso del terzo contraente, nei contratti per l’esercizio dell’azienda che non hanno carattere personale (sono a carattere personale quelli che prevedono da parte del venditore una prestazione oggettivamente infungibile o soggettivamente infungibile). Inoltre il terzo contraente può recedere dal contratto entro tre mesi, se sussiste una giusta causa (ad esempio se l’acquirente non garantisce, per la propria situazione patrimoniale o per capacità tecniche, di poter adempiere al contratto) (art. 2558 c.c.).

      Alcuni strumenti per affrontare i rischi

      Per affrontare i rischi derivanti dalle responsabilità verso i terzi e i rischi generali connessi all’acquisizione, vi sono diversi strumenti negoziali e contrattuali che possono essere utilizzati. Vediamone alcuni.

      Nelle operazioni di acquisto dell’azienda o di rami d’azienda (‘asset deal’):

      • Lavoratori dipendenti: è possibile concordare con il lavoratore modifiche alle condizioni contrattuali e rinunce alla responsabilità solidale dell’acquirente e del venditore (ex art. 2112 c.c.). L’accordo con i lavoratore per essere valido deve essere concluso in sede ‘protetta’ (ad esempio: con l’assistenza delle organizzazioni sindacali).
      • Debiti:
      • trasferire all’acquirente i debiti riducendo il prezzo in misura corrispondente; la riduzione del prezzo comporta, inoltre, una minor costo fiscale dell’operazione. In caso di trasferimento dei debiti, per tutelare il venditore si può ottenere dal creditore una dichiarazione di liberazione del venditore dalla responsabilità ex art. 2560 c.c.; oppure si può prevedere che il pagamento del debito da parte dell’acquirente avvenga contestualmente al trasferimento dell’azienda (‘closing’).
      • Per i debiti non trasferiti all’acquirente, ottenere dal creditore una dichiarazione di liberazione dell’acquirente dalla responsabilità ex art. 2560 c.c.
      • Per i debiti per i quali non sia possibile ottenere la dichiarazione di liberazione da parte del creditore, pattuire forme di garanzia a favore del venditore (per i debiti trasferiti) o a favore dell’acquirente (per i debiti non trasferiti), quali ad esempio la dilazione del pagamento (a favore dell’acquirente) di parte del prezzo, il deposito fiduciario (‘escrow’) di parte del prezzo, fideiussioni bancarie o da parte dei soci.
      • Debiti e responsabilità fiscali:
      • ottenere dall’Agenzia delle Entrate il certificato ex art. 14 D.lgs. 472/1997 sui debiti e le contestazioni in corso;
      • trasferire all’acquirente i debiti riducendo il prezzo in misura corrispondente;
      • pattuire le forme di garanzia a favore del venditore (per i debiti trasferiti) e a favore dell’acquirente (per i debiti non trasferiti o per le contestazioni che non sono ancora debiti), quali ad esempio quelle sopra esposte per i debiti in generale.
      • Contratti: per quelli che vengono trasferiti:
      • verificare che le prestazioni a carico del venditore sino alla data del trasferimento siano state regolarmente adempiute, per evitare il rischio di contestazioni del terzo contraente che possono bloccare l’esecuzione del contratto;
      • almeno per i contratti più importanti (e salvo ragioni di riservatezza), cercare di ottenere conferma dal terzo contraente del benestare al trasferimento del contratto.

      Nelle operazioni di acquisto di partecipazioni (‘share deal’), in cui l’acquirente si fa carico, indirettamente, di tutti i rischi relativi alla precedente gestione della società, alcuni strumenti sono:

      • Due diligence. Svolgere una approfondita due diligence legale, fiscale e contabile sulla società, per valutare preventivamente i rischi e gestirli nella trattativa e nei contratti.
      • Dichiarazioni e garanzie (‘R&W’) e indennizzo. Prevedere nel contratto di acquisizione (‘share purchase agreement’) un set dettagliato di dichiarazioni e garanzie – e obblighi di indennizzo in caso di non conformità – a carico del venditore relativamente alla situazione della società (‘business warranties’: bilancio; situazione patrimoniale di riferimento; contratti; contenzioso; rispetto della normativa ambientale; autorizzazioni per lo svolgimento dell’attività; debiti; crediti ecc.). La trattativa sulle dichiarazioni e garanzie normalmente recepisce, gestendoli, gli esiti della due diligence (ad esempio: viene escluso dalle dichiarazioni e garanzie e dall’indennizzo un contenzioso emerso in due diligence, del quale le parti tengono conto nella definizione del prezzo). La pattuizione di dichiarazioni e garanzie sulla situazione della società (‘business warranties’) e dell’obbligo di indennizzo sono necessari negli share deal in Italia, in quanto in mancanza di tali clausole l’acquirente non può ottenere dal venditore (salvo situazioni estreme e molto rare) un risarcimento o indennizzo in caso la situazione della società sia diversa da quella considerata al momento dell’acquisto (così ad esempio: Cass. Civ. 16963/2014).
      • Garanzie per l’acquirente. Strumenti per garantire all’acquirente l’effettiva possibilità di ottenere l’indennizzo (o parte dell’indennizzo) in caso di non conformità delle dichiarazioni e garanzie. Tra queste: (a) la dilazione del pagamento di parte del prezzo; (b) il versamento di parte del prezzo in un deposito fiduciario (‘escrow’) per la durata delle dichiarazioni e garanzie e, in caso di contestazioni, fino a che la contestazione non è definita; (c) fideiussione bancaria;; (d) polizza W&I, contratto di assicurazione che copre il rischio dell’acquirente in caso di violazioni di dichiarazioni e garanzie, sino ad un importo massimo (ed esclusi alcuni rischi).

      Altri fattori che incidono sulla scelta tra share deal e asset deal

      Naturalmente la scelta di realizzare un’operazione di acquisizione in Italia mediante share deal o asset deal, dipende anche da altri fattori oltre a quello dei costi fiscali dell’operazione. Eccone alcuni.

      • Acquisto di parte del business. Si sceglie l’asset deal, quando l’operazione non riguarda l’acquisto dell’intera azienda del venditore ma solo una sua parte (un ramo d’azienda).
      • Situazione della società problematica. Si sceglie l’asset deal quando la situazione della società target è così problematica che l’acquirente non è disponibile ad assumere tutti i rischi derivanti dalla precedente gestione, ma solo parte di essi.
      • Mantenimento di un ruolo da parte del venditore. Si sceglie lo share deal quando si vuole conservare al venditore un ruolo nella società acquisita. In questo caso, oltre ad un ruolo nel management, è frequente il mantenimento da parte del venditore di una partecipazione di minoranza, con clausole di exit (diritti di put e call) decorso un certo periodo di tempo. Clausole che, spesso, legano il prezzo ai risultati futuri e, quindi, nell’interesse dell’acquirente incentivano il venditore nel ruolo manageriale e, nell’interesse del venditore, valorizzano prospettive reddituali non concretizzate al momento dell’acquisto.

      Dal 1° agosto 2021 non sarà più necessario, per la costituzione di una SRL – società a responsabilità limitata, recarsi dal notaio: la procedura potrà anche essere realizzata completamente on line, salvo casi eccezionali. Ciò è previsto dalla Direttiva U.E. 2019/1151, che impone agli stati di adeguarsi entro due anni. Vediamo cosa prevede la Direttiva.

      Come si costituisce una S.r.l. in Italia oggi

      In Italia, per costituire una società e, in particolare, una società a responsabilità limitata, è sempre necessario rivolgersi ad un notaio.

      Ciò vale anche per la c.d. «SRL semplificata», introdotta nel 2012 dal Decreto Legge «Liberalizzazioni». In questo caso, infatti, la legge prevede che, a fronte dell’utilizzo di uno statuto standard non modificabile, non vi siano oneri notarili da sostenere. Tuttavia, resta sempre necessario comparire avanti ad un notaio.

      Cosa cambierà da agosto 2021 con il recepimento della Direttiva U.E. 2019/1151

      Le cose dovranno cambiare con l’entrata in vigore della Direttiva U.E. 2019/1151, che modifica la Direttiva U.E. 2017/1132 in tema di uso di strumenti e processi digitali nel diritto societario.

      Entro il 1° agosto 2021, gli Stati membri dovranno aggiornare le procedure per la costituzione di una società in modo da garantire un doppio binario.

      Dovrà, cioè, essere possibile costituire una società sia con il metodo tradizionale, ossia rivolgendosi ad un notaio, oppure con procedure esclusivamente on line.

      Due eccezioni

      • l’art. 13-ter, par. 4, dispone che «ove sia giustificato da motivi di interesse pubblico per impedire l’usurpazione o l’alterazione di identità, gli Stati membri possono adottare misure che potrebbero richiedere la presenza fisica ai fini della verifica dell’identità del richiedente dinanzi a un’autorità o a qualsiasi persona od organismo incaricati… Gli Stati membri provvedono affinché la presenza fisica del richiedente possa essere richiesta solo se vi sono motivi di sospettare una falsificazione dell’identità e garantiscono che qualsiasi altra fase della procedura possa essere completata online»;
      • l’art. 13-octies, co. 8, dispone che «ove giustificato da motivi di interesse pubblici a garantire il rispetto delle norme sulla capacità giuridica e sull’autorità dei richiedenti di rappresentare una società, qualsiasi autorità o qualsiasi persona od organismo incaricato… può chiedere la presenza fisica del richiedente… Gli Stati membri garantiscono che tutte le altre fasi della procedura possano essere comunque completate on line».

      Gli Stati membri dovranno mettere a disposizione i modelli necessari per la costituzione delle società a responsabilità limitata «in almeno una lingua ufficiale dell’Unione ampiamente compresa dal maggior numero possibile di utenti transfrontalieri».

      Rischi

      La direttiva rappresenta, indubbiamente, un interessante tentativo di semplificazione, il cui successo dipenderà, tuttavia, da come verrà recepita dai singoli Stati membri.

      I rischi principali sono almeno due:

      1. il primo, facilmente intuibile, è che gli Stati membri rendano troppo oneroso l’accertamento dell’identità od il potere rappresentativo dei richiedenti, rendendo più semplice, in definitiva, il tradizionale ricorso ad un notaio;
      2. il secondo è che le procedure on line siano poco chiare o comprensibili, specie agli utenti stranieri. In tal senso, non appare sufficiente che i modelli siano resi disponibili, ma sarà necessario che le procedure online siano orientate alla maggiore semplificazione possibile e che i modelli siano tutti disponibili almeno in lingua inglese.

      Infine, è evidente che la digitalizzazione del procedimento di costituzione di una società non elimina l’opportunità di rivolgersi ad un professionista con il compito di consigliare il cliente nelle scelte che sarà necessario fare, ad esempio in materia di corporate governance.

      A legal due diligence of a Brazilian target company should analyze the existence and the content of Agency Agreements, including values paid to the agent and the nature of such payments and the factual situation of the target’s agents, in order to evaluate potential contingencies.

      One usual suspect in legal due diligences of Brazilian target companies in M&A transactions that should not be overlooked is the existence of agency agreements, due to:

      • the obligation to indemnify the agent stipulated by law: at least 1/12th of all commissions paid throughout the entire term of the agency agreement; and
      • the risks for the agency being disregarded and considered as an employment relationship, subjecting the principal to compensate the agent as an employee with all rights, benefits, taxes and social contributions.

      This should be considered for evaluation of potential contingencies and the impacts on the valuation of the target.

      No doubt that agents can be an important component of the sales force of the business and can be strategic for the activity of the principal, in view of a certain independence and for not increasing the payroll of a company.

      On the other hand, under Brazilian laws, the protective nature of the agency demands the principal a considerable level of attention.

      Indemnification

      Brazilian Federal Law No. 4,886/65 as amended – the Brazilian Agency Law – determines that the agent is entitled to, at the termination of an agency agreement, receive an indemnification of 1/12th calculated over all the commissions paid throughout the duration of the entire period of the agency agreement.

      The Brazilian Agency Law stipulates that if the parties sign a new contract within 6 months after the expiration of the previous, the relation between agent and principal shall be deemed as the same relationship and thus, the duration to calculate the indemnification shall encompass the entire period (past and subsequent contract).

      Termination by the agent

      The Brazilian Agency Law also stipulates situations that agent could terminate the contract and still be entitled to receive the 1/12th indemnification:

      • reduction of the activities in disagreement with the contractual stipulation
      • breach of exclusivity (territory and/or products), if so stipulated in the agreement
      • determination of prices that makes the agency unfeasible and
      • default on payment of the commissions
      • force majeure

      Termination without cause

      Termination without cause can be done, upon payment to agent of the indemnification and with a previous notice of at least 30 days, in which situation the agent shall receive the payment of 1/3 of the remuneration received during the previous 90 days prior to the termination.

      Can principal avoid the indemnification?

      The only cases where the 1/12th indemnification would not be applicable are when the contract is terminated by principal with cause. The Brazilian Agency Law has limited situations for principal to terminate the contract with cause:

      • acts by agent causing disrepute of the principal
      • breach of obligations related to the agency activities
      • criminal conviction related to honor, reputation

      These situations shall be clearly demonstrated. Producing the sufficiently strong evidence of the facts to configure cause for termination may not be an easy task, considering some of the facts may be subject to construing and interpreting by the parties, witnesses and ultimately the judge.

      As a result, from past experiences, it is rare to see principals in conditions not to incur in the 1/12th indemnification.

      Potential risk: configuring employment relationship

      In addition to the indemnification, the activities developed by the agent could eventually be deemed as performed by a regular employee of the principal and, in this case, principal could be subject to compensate the agent as an employee.

      Agent vs. employee

      For the appreciation of the employment relationship, the individual acting as agent shall file a labor claim and demonstrate the existence of the employment relationship.

      The Labor Court judge will consider the factual situation, prevailing upon the written agreements or other formal documents. The judge may rely on e-mails, witnesses and other evidence.

      The elements of an employment relationship are:

      • Individual: in case the individual acts by himself to perform the services; Personal services: the services are in fact performed by the individual specifically to the Principal;;
      • Non-eventuality – exclusivity: the services are rendered in a regular basis;
      • Subordination: key factor – the individual has to follow strict instructions directed by principal, such as reporting to an employee of the principal, determined visits;
      • Rewarding – fixed remuneration: the individual is awarded regular amounts and expenses allowances

      In the event the individual can demonstrate the existence of the elements to configure an employment relationship, he/she could have an award to entitle him/her to have his remuneration considered as of a regular employee for the last 5 years.

      As a result, the individual would be awarded the payment of Christmas bonus (equivalent to 1 monthly remuneration per year), vacation allowance (1/3 of a monthly remuneration per year), unemployment guarantee fund (1 monthly remuneration per year) plus other benefits that he/she would be given as an employee of principal (based on the collective bargaining agreement between the employees’ and employers’ unions). The company would also be obliged to make the payment of the co-related social security contributions.

      Needless to say, the result could turn into a considerable potential contingency.

      The author of this article is Paulo Yamaguchi

      Uno dei momenti più delicati di qualsiasi operazione di M&A è sicuramente il momento in cui si affronta il tema delle «garanzie», in particolare con riferimento alla situazione economica, patrimoniale e finanziaria della società o dell’azienda (o di un ramo d’azienda), ovvero le c.d. «business warranties».

      Da un lato, infatti, il compratore vorrebbe «blindare» quanto più possibile il proprio investimento, riducendo al minimo il rischio di sorprese. Al contrario, il venditore vorrebbe contenere il più possibile le garanzie offerte, che spesso si traducono in un limite temporaneo al pieno godimento dei frutti della vendita, di cui magari necessita per effettuare un altro investimento.

      È bene precisare, innanzi tutto, che con il termine «garanzie» si fa normalmente riferimento, in modo atecnico, ad un articolato set di previsioni contrattuali contenenti:

      • le dichiarazioni del venditore circa lo stato di salute della società o dell’azienda (o del ramo d’azienda) ceduta;
      • gli obblighi d’indennizzo assunti dal venditore in caso di «violazione» (ossia non corrispondenza al vero) delle dichiarazioni rese;
      • gli strumenti previsti al fine di assicurare l’effettività degli obblighi d’indennizzo assunti.

      Vi sono diverse ragioni per cui tale set è necessario, ma la principale è che nei contratti di M&A non trovano applicazione le garanzie civilistiche sulle vendita se non limitatamente al bene venduto, pertanto, se il bene venduto sono le partecipazioni, le garanzie non coprono gli asset sottostanti della società, e, nei casi eccezionali in cui trovano applicazione, i termini brevi e le limitazioni stringenti rendono, comunque, opportuna l’assunzione di obbligazioni accessorie volte a garantire il buon esito economico dell’operazione.

      Ciò è confermato dalla pratica: nelle operazioni di M&A non vi è contratto che non includa il set delle garanzie.

      Le dichiarazioni, in particolare, recepiscono normalmente la due diligence svolta dal compratore, preceduta, a sua volta, da un non disclosure agreement (NDA), finalizzato a tutelare le informazioni messe a disposizione.

      Eventuali criticità che dovessero emergere dovranno essere adeguatamente riportate. Ovviamente, non è detto che un’eventuale criticità, laddove si concretizzi, debba necessariamente far scattare un obbligo d’indennizzo. Spetterà alle parti regolamentare tale aspetto, potendo anche prevedere che il relativo rischio resti a carico del compratore, magari a fronte di una riduzione del prezzo.

      In merito all’obbligo d’indennizzo dovranno poi essere attentamente negoziati alcuni aspetti. I principali sono sicuramente:

      • la durata (es. maggiore per le garanzie fiscali);
      • a chi spetta l’eventuale indennizzo (al compratore o alla società; all’uno o all’altra a seconda dei casi);
      • eventuali detrazioni e /o limitazioni (es. perdite fiscali);
      • l’importo massimo indennizzabile;
      • un’eventuale franchigia;
      • la procedura d’indennizzo (es. termini per la richiesta, procedura di composizione, situazioni particolari, etc.).

      Si tratta di aspetti importantissimi, che non devono essere sottovalutati. È chiaro, ad esempio, che non disciplinare adeguatamente la procedura d’indennizzo rischia di vanificare tutto il lavoro fatto prima.

      Infine, dovranno essere previsti strumenti idonei al fine di assicurare la tutela effettiva del compratore. Tra questi, quelli più tradizionali sono:

      • la fideiussione;
      • il contratto autonomo di garanzia;
      • il deposito fiduciario («escrow»);
      • la dilazione di pagamento;
      • il meccanismo di «earn out»;
      • il c.d. «price adjustment»;
      • la lettera di patronage;
      • il pegno e/o l’ipoteca.

      Si tratta di strumenti tutti più o meno largamente utilizzati nella pratica, che presentano ciascuno dei pro e dei contro.

      Qui, tuttavia, vogliamo occuparci di un nuovo strumento di natura assicurativa, a cui si sta cominciando a fare ricorso negli ultimi tempi: le c.d. «Polizze Warranty & Indemnity».

      Con una polizza W&I, in pratica, l’assicuratore, a fronte del pagamento di un premio, assume su di sé il rischio derivante dalla violazione delle dichiarazioni contenute in un contratto di M&A.

      Presupposto fondamentale, ovviamente, è che la violazione derivi da fatti antecedenti al closing e non noti in quel momento (e, quindi, non evidenziati dalla due diligence effettuata).

      La polizza può essere sottoscritta dal compratore (buyer side) o dal venditore (seller side). Di regola è preferita la prima soluzione. Tali polizze W&I presentano numerosi vantaggi:

      • si ottiene una garanzia a fronte di un venditore non sempre disponibile ad impegnarsi contrattualmente;
      • la polizza generalmente non prevede l’ipotesi di regresso nei confronti del venditore, salvo il caso di dolo, per cui il venditore è integralmente liberato;
      • è possibile ottenere un massimale maggiore di quello previsto nel contratto di compravendita;
      • analogamente, la copertura può essere prevista per un periodo più lungo;
      • si facilitano le relazioni con il venditore, specie nel caso ci siano più venditori ed alcuni di essi restino nella società, magari occupando un posto nel Consiglio d’Amministrazione;
      • si facilita notevolmente il processo d’indennizzo, specie nel caso in cui ci siano più venditori, magari persone fisiche;
      • il compratore riesce ad avere una maggiore certezza di solvibilità.

      Il costo della polizza potrebbe essere condiviso tra le parti, eventualmente con uno sconto del prezzo, che il venditore potrebbe essere disposto a concedere tenuto conto del fatto che non dovrà rilasciare altre garanzie e potrà godere immediatamente dei frutti della vendita.

      Il premio è normalmente compreso tra l’1% ed il 2% del limite d’indennizzo previsto (con un premio minimo).

      Attualmente, i limiti principali di questo strumento paiono essere, oltre al prezzo, che rende lo strumento adatto principalmente ad operazioni di importo non piccolo, la franchigia standard normalmente prevista, pari all’1% dell’Enterprise Value del Target, riducibile allo 0,5% a fronte di un innalzamento del premio. Da tenere presente inoltre che la polizza W&I implica la revisione della due diligence da parte della compagnia, che può tradursi in un intervento attivo nella negoziazione delle garanzie.

      A parte ciò, lo strumento è da considerare attentamente: in presenza di situazioni particolarmente complesse, potrebbe rappresentare la giusta soluzione per sbloccare situazioni di stallo negoziale e rendere più agevoli negoziazioni tra investitori professionali e PMI.

      The procedure to incorporate a foreign owned company in Spain is, in principle, easy and straight forward, however it is necessary to take into account certain new requirements derived from the tax and the anti-money laundering regulations, which could cause long delays in the incorporation process, even to EU and US companies, if they are not well advised and managed from the beginning of the procedure.

      The first step consist in collecting information about the foreign shareholder, in order to be able to prove its legal existence and activities: the foreign shareholder(s) will have to grant before a Notary Public in its country of residence a power of attorney authorising somebody in Spain to obtain its tax identification number (“NIE”), and also represent it before the Spanish notary when signing the deed of incorporation. In case the foreign shareholder is an individual person, the NIE should be applied for before the Spanish police or the Spanish Consulate at the country where the investor lives.

      If the shareholder is a corporation, apart from the Power of Attorney, it will have to obtain a certificate from its Companies’ Registry or Chamber of Commerce, stating its legal existence and main characteristics. This document is called “good standing certificate” (in the UK and US), “K-bis” (in France), “KvK” (in the Netherlands) or “visura” (in Italy). These two documents, the Power of Attorney mentioned in the above paragraph and the certificate from the Companies’ Registry, will have to be Apostilled or legalized by the correspondent Ministry, and Sworn translated into Spanish. Please note that we use to draft bilingual powers of attorney in order to avoid its sworn translation.

      The foreign shareholder will have to prove that its income is obtained from legal activities in order to be able to open a bank account in the name of the new company. The main document to prove this could be the Corporate or the Personal Income Tax return filed in its country of residence, but there could be other means, especially in case of individual persons.

      In case of a corporate shareholder, it will be necessary as well to declare, in principle through a public deed granted in Spain, who are the individual persons who, directly or through other companies, will hold more than a 25% interest in the new company to be incorporated. In case nobody holds more than a 25% (i.e. because there are 5 individual shareholders, holding each of them a 20%), it is declared that the effective control of the new company corresponds to its director.

      At this stage, it is also necessary to mention that the person(s) who will be the director(s) of the new company, in case they are foreigners, will also need to obtain their personal “NIE”. The NIE should be applied for before the Spanish police (this could be done by a proxy duly authorised though a Power of Attorney granted by the foreign director) or before the Spanish Consulate nearest to the city where the investor lives. In order to be a director of a Spanish company it is not necessary to be a shareholder, nor to have residence and work permit in Spain (provided the foreign director does not live in Spain).

      Meanwhile the necessary documents (Powers of Attorney, Companies’ Registry certificate, etc.) are being prepared by the foreign shareholder, the lawyer in Spain will apply for the new company’s name. It is advisable to point out that generic or usual names are not available quite often, therefore it is necessary to think in original names. Three different names could be applied for simultaneously.

      The drafting of the company’s Articles of Association or By Laws could be very quick, except if the company is going to have several shareholders and they wish specific clauses. In this case, it is also advisable to draft a Shareholders Agreement. The Shareholders’ Agreement could just contain some basic rules on dedication, compensation, non-competition, etc. and some more sophisticated rules on the sale of shares (tag along and drag along rights). As regards the By-Laws, they should mention the company’s name, its activity or activities, address in Spain –which cannot be just a P.O. Box-, share capital, number of shares and its face value, and starting date for the fiscal year, among other standard clauses.

      The management of the company could be organized through a sole director, two directors who could act jointly or separately, and in case there are more than three directors, they should organize themselves through a Board of Directors, being usual in this case to appoint a C.E.O. In order to be a director it is not necessary to be a shareholder. Under Spanish laws, the director(s) could be held liable for some company’s debts under certain circumstances which are legally defined. For this reason, it is necessary that the directors formally accept their appointment (personally appearing before the Notary or through a Power of Attorney).

      Before the incorporation, it will be necessary that either the new company’s director (the person to be appointed) or the representative of the corporate shareholder appears personally before the bank where the company will have its first bank account and signs the correspondent documents (KYC regulation). Once the bank account is opened, the shareholder will have to send a bank transfer for the new company’s share capital. In Spain, the minimum share capital for a limited company (S.L.) is Euros 3.000, while for a “Sociedad Anónima” (S.A.) it is Euros 60.000, but only 25% should be paid off at the incorporation moment. It is interesting to note that contributions to the share capital could be made in cash – which is the most common operation, especially at the incorporation – or in kind, with any type of assets: real estate, machinery, goods, trademarks, etc. The money for the share capital should be sent to the new company’s bank account from an account owned by the shareholder (or from each account owned by each shareholder, should they be several ones), not by any other different person. Once the Spanish bank receives the transfer, it will issue a certificate, which is necessary in order to incorporate the company.

      Once all the documents are ready, it is possible within very few days (almost immediately) to make the appointment with the Notary and sign the public deed of incorporation. This can be done at any notary in Spain, not being necessary that the notary practises at the same city where the company will have its corporate address. In order to summarize, the list of the necessary documents is:

      • Power(s) of Attorney granted by the foreign shareholder(s), apostilled and sworn translated.
      • Certificate regarding the legal existence of the foreign shareholder (only if it is a corporation), apostilled and sworn translated.
      • Statement on who are the last individual shareholders holding more than 25% interest in the new company, directly or indirectly (only in case of corporate shareholders).
      • NIE of the foreign shareholder(s).
      • NIE of the new company’s director(s), should they be a foreigners.
      • Certificate for the new company’s name.
      • Articles of Association.
      • Bank certificate regarding the contribution to the new company’s share capital.

      The deed of incorporation is signed by the proxy (or the individual shareholder(s), should they prefer to personally appear before the notary) before the chosen public notary, being also necessary to sign an official form to report the foreign investment to a public registry depending on the Spanish Ministry of Finance.

      Once the deed of incorporation is signed, the next steps consist in applying before the tax authorities to obtain the new company’s tax number (NIF / CIF) and filing the deed of incorporation before the Companies’ Registry. Some banks do allow new companies to operate once they have the NIF (which could be 2-3 days after the incorporation), while others request to wait until the deed of incorporation is filed at the Companies’ Registry (2-3 weeks).

      An estimation of the necessary time to complete all the procedure is 30-45 days, but of course the main delay is related to speed of the foreign investor in obtaining the necessary documents.

      Please note that if you wish to incorporate a foreign owned company in Spain it is always necessary to seek specific professional advice, as each case is different and regulations and the application of such regulations vary from time to time. The above article just explains the main steps and requirements for the incorporation of a company.

      In all M&A operations one of the issues that deserves special attention as regards its analysis, ascertainment and negotiation is the tax liabilities. Even though the parties could agree on the amount of such contingencies, to negotiate the possible guarantees that the seller should grant in order to protect the buyer from a possible claim by the tax authorities, the term during which the guarantees should be in force, and to agree on the communication mechanisms between the parties (buyer and seller) and the legal defense strategies if such claim from the tax authorities arises, requires substantial negotiation efforts.

      When the acquisition operation is formalized not through the purchase of shares, but through the purchase of the assets that form a business unit, the Spanish General Tax Law (“Ley General Tributaria” or “LGT”) provides a mechanism which implies an exception to the general principle provided by article 42 of the same law. Article 42 of LGT establishes the joint liability of the purchaser of a business unit for the tax liabilities of the selling company (“tax liability derived from company’s succession”). That is, in principle, according to article 42 of the LGT “the persons or entities that continue by any mean in the ownership or exercise of economic activities (the buyers) will be jointly liable with the previous owner for the tax liabilities derived from the exercise of such economic activities incurred by such previous owner”.

      However, the joint tax liability of the buyer could be limited through the application before the tax authorities of the tax certificate regulated by article 175.2 of the LGT. This certificate should be applied for by the prospective buyer, with the authorization of the present owner (the seller), and, once issued, the tax liability of the buyer becomes limited to the debts, penalties and liabilities mentioned in the certificate. If the certificate is issued without mentioning any amount, or if the tax authorities do not issue it within a three months term from the application’s date, the applicant (the buyer) will be released from any tax liability derived from company’s succession.

      The tax certificate for succession purposes includes the main taxes, as Value Added Tax and Corporate Income Tax, and can include as well debts derived from the withholding taxes on employees’ payroll, which in case of companies with a big number of employees could be of an outstanding amount. However, the buyer’s joint liability for salaries, related payroll amounts and social security contributions cannot be limited by such certificate, and such liability will always be joint with the business unit seller’s liability.

      The application for the tax certificate should be filed before the acquisition of the business unit is completed, even if the issuance of the certificate takes place later tan the closing date (but of course, it is wiser to not close the acquisition before having the certificate). The certificate’s validity lasts for one year, as regards periodical tax obligations (for example, Value Added Tax, Corporate Income Tax and withholding taxes on salaries) and for three months as regards non periodical tax obligations.

      It is very important to apply for the right tax certificate (“certificate for succession purposes according to article 175.2 of LGT”), and to not make a mistake and apply, for example, for the certificate regarding having fulfilled all tax obligations (“certificado de estar al corriente de las obligaciones fiscales”). Case law is plenty of judgments where a buyer applied for the wrong certificate, which showed no liabilities, and later on such buyer has been sentenced to pay the tax liabilities incurred by the previous owner of the business unit.

      When M&A transactions in Brazil are deemed not successful by the investor the main reason for underperformance is generally the existence of debts or fiscal/labor contingencies materialized higher than evaluated, or unexpected material adverse changes.

      The reasons for overlooking the debts and fiscal/labor contingencies is often the rush to close the investment. Either for avoiding a competitor to acquire the target, or to keep the leading position of the market share, for certain cases, the buyers may have not paid proper attention to what their advisors had to say before closing the deal.

      1. Local legal advisors

      The legal advisors may take, for the perception of the executives eager to complete an acquisition, a bit longer than expected to round up facts and properly report the risks found. The perception for this lower pace to reach out the conclusions may differ from the executives due to the delay of seller to provide documents or clarify questions raised.

      Slowing down a bit to the benefit of certainty is a sound advice.

      Experienced Brazilian advisors shall always be included among the teams. Their knowledge on facing subtle change of applicable laws, rules or predominant court decisions is certainly valuable for better understanding the status of the target and the ways to mitigate risks.

      Certain facts may not seem at first as significant risk for first timers dealing with Brazilian matters. However, the advisors do have a reason to raise the point and should be properly heard. Examples such as absence of one single clear certificate issued by a government department or a missing report on disposal of solid residues, that may not seem a big issue, could turn into a risk of suspension of activities of a plant.

      An audit company is usually hired to identify tax and labor contingencies, but the audit company does not evaluate nor assess the numbers, only the maximum exposure. The legal advisors are in charge of the risk assessment and determination of the estimate of the contingencies. It is up to the buyer to accept and negotiate the relevant coverage for such contingencies.

      Seller may not give full details of all issues of the target at first. It is the role of the advisors to investigate, request further documents and clarification to bring matters that affect the business to buyer’s attention. In a good faith scenario, seller would be willing to discuss the matters, to avoid future disputes or frustrations to buyer.

      1. Debt

      Charges, penalties, interests and other compensations in financial operations turns these contracts full of minor details and very complex in anywhere in the world. Brazilian contracts are not exception. That is the reason why a proper assessment of the financial operations and obtain the real picture of the debt and related costs.

      As usual, attention to change of control provisions are also relevant to mitigate risks – absence of consent or non-compliance of the required steps prior to closing the operation can cause acceleration of the financial operation and trigger cross-default provisions in other contracts that can also lead to acceleration of the financial operations.

      1. Tax/labor contingencies

      Calculation and estimate of tax contingencies are specific for each tax and requires knowledge and a sound judgment to estimate exposure and appoint measures to cover the risks. Same level of care applies to labor-related contingencies.

      Tax and labor matters are usually the most relevant risks to be observed in a Brazilian target. Complexity of regulation and the amount of obligations to fulfill makes these points significant.

      1. Material adverse change

      Material adverse change clauses – “MAC Clauses” – are contractual provisions to mitigate negative effects or a substantial change to the parties. These provisions are admitted in Brazilian law, in view the M&A transaction documents are executed in good faith and respecting the parties’ freedom to commit to certain obligations.

      Needless to say, the MAC Clauses should contain crystal clear language, with objective description of the facts, well defined applicable time period, cause and consequences duly described for proper and easy execution. If not, determination of MAC Clause event shall end on a dispute.

      In the absence of MAC Clauses, Brazilian Civil Code contemplates the ability to any party in a continuous contractual relation to seek for the termination of the contract, by virtue of extraordinary and unpredictable facts, in the event such party is affected with excessive onus and generates extreme advantage to another party. Determination whether the parties were subject to extraordinary and unpredictable facts would depend nevertheless on ruling by a judge or arbitrator, as provided in the acquisition documents.

      1. Guarantees and Indemnification

      For avoidance of future problems, the buyer should obtain strong and prompt executable guarantees. The (a) ability to withhold payments, (b) deposit of part of the purchase price in escrow account with clear rules for withdrawing the escrow amount are most likely measures to ensure a prompt indemnification. From previous experiences, other guarantees like pledge of shares, personal guarantee, lien or even chattel mortgage over real property are harder to execute and indemnify the prejudiced party.

      De minimis clauses (minimum amount for a party to be indemnified – if not reached, the prejudiced party is not going to receive any indemnification) or basket (limitation of indemnifiable amount) are additions to the provisions for guarantees also acceptable for Brazilian M&A transactions.

      The experienced advisors will make a difference to assist on the drafting of these provisions and to reflect what the parties discussed and agreed on the table.

      1. Break-up Fees

      A conscious buyer will certainly avoid the risk of incurring in heavy break-up fees, with proper assessment provided by competent advisors of what may happen until closing. Nevertheless, in certain cases, even after signing a binding document, it might make sense paying a break-up fee even if substantial rather than entering into a risky transaction.

      Recent Brazilian M&A transactions have included break-up fees, applicable in case of the regulatory restrictions are too high or in case the buyer gives up the acquisition. The highest break-up fee known was included in an offer made by Paper Excellence (member of Asia Pulp and Paper, based in Indonesia) was BRL 4 billion (over USD 1 billion or around EUR 900 million). The deal was not closed as another bidder had better credit check (even proposing lower break-up fees).

      In 2015, Ânima paid BRL 46 million (around USD 12.5 million or EUR 10.6 million) of break-up fees to Whitney do Brasil – education sector – for giving up the acquisition due to changes on students’ public financing rules. In 2018, Ultragaz paid BRL 280 million (around USD 75 million or EUR 64 million) in break-up fees to Liquigás, due to the veto by the Brazilian antitrust authority for the operation.

      1. Recommendations

      In this regard, the recommendations to avoid the referred reasons for a not satisfactory failure in M&A transactions in Brazil are:

      • Rely on local advisors: make sure that local Brazilian experts are included in the advisory team – the proper Brazilian legal, accountancy, tax and business experts can provide you with the necessary and valuable information for the proper decision-making process;
      • Listen to what the local advisors have to say: some matters raised may not seem to harm the deal, but it is important to let your advisor give you the full explanation and the reasons why the advisor is concerned about the topic. The advisor has a reason to bring the matters to discussion;
      • On the buy-side, ensure the existence of proper guarantees – feasible and enforceable – for prompt reimbursement of the losses, instead of discussions or long disputes;
      • Be very attentive in the preparation and discussion of the indemnification, procedure for indemnifying a prejudiced party, accommodating the business negotiation and the coverage to the risks explained by the advisors;
      • MAC Clauses shall be clear, precise and objective; and
      • However hard may be, it might make sense paying a break-up fee instead of completing a risky transaction.

      The author of this article is Paulo Yamaguchi

      M&A – Polizza Warranty and Indemnity

      12 Aprile 2019

      • Italia
      • M&A

      This week the Interim Injunction Judge of the Netherlands Commercial Court ruled in summary proceedings, following a video hearing, in a case on a EUR 169 million transaction where the plaintiff argued that the final transaction had been concluded and the defendant should proceed with the deal.

      This in an – intended – transaction where the letter of intent stipulates that a EUR 30 million break fee is due when no final agreement is signed.

      In addition to ruling on this question of construction of an agreement under Dutch law, the judge also had to rule on the break fee if no agreement was concluded and whether it should be amended or reduced because of the current Coronavirus / Covid-19 crisis.

      English Language proceedings in a Dutch state court, the Netherlands Commercial Court (NCC)

      The case is not just interesting because of the way contract formation is construed under Dutch law and application of concepts of force majeure, unforeseen circumstances and amendment of agreements under the concepts of reasonableness and fairness as well as mitigation of contractual penalties, but also interesting because it was ruled on by a judge of the English language chamber of the Netherlands Commercial Court (NCC).

      This new (2019) Dutch state court offers a relatively fast and cost-effective alternative for international commercial litigation, and in particular arbitration, in a neutral jurisdiction with professional judges selected for both their experience in international disputes and their command of English.

      The dispute regarding the construction of an M&A agreement under Dutch law in an international setting

      The facts are straightforward. Parties (located in New York, USA and the Netherlands) dispute whether final agreement on the EUR 169 million transaction has been reached but do agree a break fee of €30 million in case of non-signature of the final agreement was agreed. However, in addition to claiming there is no final agreement, the defendant also argues that the break fee – due when there is no final agreement – should be reduced or changed due to the coronavirus crisis.

      As to contract formation it must be noted that Dutch law allows broad leeway on how to communicate what may or may not be an offer or acceptance. The standard is what a reasonable person in the same circumstances would have understood their communications to mean.  Here, the critical fact is that the defendant did not sign the so-called “Transaction Agreement”. The letter of intent’s binary mechanism (either execute and deliver the paperwork for the Transaction Agreement by the agreed date or pay a EUR 30 million fee) may not have been an absolute requirement for contract formation (under Dutch law) but has significant evidentiary weight. In M&A practice – also under Dutch law – with which these parties are thoroughly familiar with, this sets a very high bar for  concluding a contract was agreed other than by explicit written agreement. So, parties may generally comfortably rely on what they have agreed on in writing with the assistance of their advisors.

      The communications relied on by claimant in this case did not clear the very high bar to assume that despite the mechanism of the letter of intent and the lack of a signed Transaction Agreement there still was a binding agreement. In particular attributing the other party’s advisers’ statements and/or conduct to the contracting party they represent did not work for the claimant in this case as per the verdict nothing suggested that the advisers would be handling everything, including entering into the agreement.

      Court order for actual performance of a – deemed – agreement on an M&A deal?

      The Interim Injunction Judge finds that there is not a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits so as to justify an interim measure ordering the defendant to actually perform its obligations under the disputed Transaction Agreement (payment of EUR 169 million and take the claimant’s 50% stake in an equestrian show-jumping business).

      Enforcement of the break fee despite “Coronavirus”?

      Failing the conclusion of an agreement, there was still another question to answer as the letter of intent mechanism re the break fee as such was not disputed. Should the Court enforce the full EUR 30 million fee in the current COVID-19 circumstances? Or should the fee’s effects be modified, mitigated or reduced in some way, or  the fee agreement should even be dissolved?

      Unforeseen circumstances, reasonableness and fairness

      The Interim Injunction Judge rules that the coronavirus crisis may be an unforeseen circumstance, but it is not of such a nature that, according to standards of reasonableness and fairness, the plaintiff cannot expect the break fee obligation to remain unchanged. The purpose of the break fee is to encourage parties to enter into the transaction and attribute / share risks between them. As such the fee limits the exposure of the parties. Payment of the fee is a quick way out of the obligation to pay the purchase price of EUR 169 million and the risks of keeping the target company financially afloat. If financially the coronavirus crisis turns out less disastrous than expected, the fee of EUR 30 million may seem high, but that is what the parties already considered reasonable when they waived their right to invoke the unreasonableness of the fee. The claim for payment of the EUR 30 million break fee is therefore upheld by the Interim Injunction Judge.

      Applicable law and the actual practice of it by the courts

      The relevant three articles are in this case articles 6:94, 6:248 and 6:258 of the Dutch Civil Code. They relate to the mitigation of contractual penalties, unforeseen circumstances and amendment of the agreement under the tenets of reasonableness and fairness. Under Dutch law the courts must with all three exercise caution. Contracts must generally be enforced as agreed. The parties’ autonomy is deemed paramount and the courts’ attitude is deferential. All three articles use language stating, essentially, that interference by the courts in the contract’s operation is allowed only to avoid an “unacceptable” impact, as assessed under standards of reasonableness and fairness.

      There is at this moment of course no well- established case law on COVID-19. However, commentators have provided guidance that is very helpful to think through the issues. Recently a “share the pain” approach has been advocated by a renowned law Professor, Tjittes, who focuses on preserving the parties’ contractual equilibrium in the current circumstances. This is, in the Court’s analysis, the right way to look at the agreement here. There is no evidence in the record suggesting that the parties contemplated or discussed the full and exceptional impact of the COVID-19 crisis. The crisis may or may not be unprovided for.  However, the court rules in the current case there is no need to rule on this issue. Even if the crisis is unprovided for, there is no support in the record for the proposition that the crisis makes it unacceptable for the claimant to demand strict performance by the defendant. The reasons are straightforward.

      The break fee allocates risk and expresses commitment and caps exposure. The harm to the business may be substantial and structural, or it may be short-term and minimal. Either way, the best “share the pain” solution, to preserve the contractual equilibrium in the agreement, is for the defendant to pay the fee as written in the letter of intent. This allocates a defined risk to one party, and actual or potential risks to the other party. Reducing the break fee in any business downturn, the fee’s express purpose – comfort and confidence to get the deal done – would not be accomplished and be derived in precisely the circumstances in which it should be robust. As a result, the Court therefore orders to pay the full EUR 30 million fee. So the break fee stipulation works under the circumstances without mitigation because of the Corona outbreak.

      The Netherlands Commercial Court, continued

      As already indicated above, the case is interesting because the verdict has been rendered by a Dutch state court in English and the proceedings where also in English. Not because of a special privilege granted in a specific case but based on an agreement between parties with a proper choice of forum clause for this court. In addition to the benefit to of having an English forum without mandatorily relying on either arbitration or choosing an anglophone court, it also has the benefit of it being a state court with the application of the regular Dutch civil procedure law, which is well known by it’s practitioners and reduces the risk of surprises of a procedural nature.  As it is as such also a “normal” state court, there is the right to appeal and particularly effective under Dutch law access to expedited proceeding as was also the case in the example referred to above. This means a regular procedure with full application of all evidentiary rules may still follow, overturning or confirming this preliminary verdict in summary proceedings.

      Novel technology in proceedings

      Another first or at least a novel application is that all submissions were made in eNCC, a document upload procedure for the NCC. Where the introduction of electronic communication and litigation in the Dutch court system has failed spectacularly, the innovations are now all following in quick order and quite effective. As a consequence of the Coronavirus outbreak several steps have been quickly tried in practice and thereafter formally set up. At present this – finally – includes a secure email-correspondence system between attorneys and the courts.

      And, also by special order of the Court in this present case, given the current COVID-19 restrictions the matter was dealt with at a public videoconference hearing on 22 April 2020 and the case was set for judgment on 29 April 2020 and published on 30 April 2020.

      Even though it is a novel application, it is highly likely that similar arrangements will continue even after expiry of current emergency measures. In several Dutch courts videoconference hearings are applied on a voluntary basis and is expected that the arrangements will be formalized.

      Eligibility of cases for the Netherlands Commercial Court

      Of more general interest are the requirements for matters that may be submitted to NCC:

      • the Amsterdam District Court or Amsterdam Court of Appeal has jurisdiction
      • the parties have expressly agreed in writing that proceedings will be in English before the NCC (the ‘NCC agreement’)
      • the action is a civil or commercial matter within the parties’ autonomy
      • the matter concerns an international dispute.

      The NCC agreement can be recorded in a clause, either before or after the dispute arises. The Court even recommends specific wording:

      “All disputes arising out of or in connection with this agreement will be resolved by the Amsterdam District Court following proceedings in English before the Chamber for International Commercial Matters (“Netherlands Commercial Court” or “NCC District Court”), to the exclusion of the jurisdiction of any other courts. An action for interim measures, including protective measures, available under Dutch law may be brought in the NCC’s Court in Summary Proceedings (CSP) in proceedings in English. Any appeals against NCC or CSP judgments will be submitted to the Amsterdam Court of Appeal’s Chamber for International Commercial Matters (“Netherlands Commercial Court of Appeal” or “NCCA”).”

      The phrase “to the exclusion of the jurisdiction of any other courts” is included in light of the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements. It is not mandatory to include it of course and parties may decide not to exclude the jurisdiction of other courts or make other arrangements they consider appropriate. The only requirement being that such arrangements comply with the rules of jurisdiction and contract. Please note that choice of court agreements are exclusive unless the parties have “expressly provided” or “agreed” otherwise (as per the Hague Convention and Recast Brussels I Regulation).

      Parties in a pending case before another Dutch court or chamber may request that their case be referred to NCC District Court or NCC Court of Appeal. One of the requirements is to agree on a clause that takes the case to the NCC and makes English the language of the proceedings. The NCC recommends using this language:

      We hereby agree that all disputes in connection with the case [name parties], which is currently pending at the *** District Court (case number ***), will be resolved by the Amsterdam District Court following proceedings in English before the Chamber for International Commercial Matters (“Netherlands Commercial Court” or ”NCC District Court). Any action for interim measures, including protective measures, available under Dutch law will be brought in the NCC’s Court in Summary Proceedings (CSP) in proceedings in English. Any appeals against NCC or CSP judgments will be submitted to the Amsterdam Court of Appeal’s Chamber for International Commercial Matters (“Netherlands Commercial Court of Appeal” or “NCC Court of Appeal”).

      To request a referral, a motion must be made before the other chamber or court where the action is pending, stating the request and contesting jurisdiction (if the case is not in Amsterdam) on the basis of a choice-of-court agreement (see before).

      Additional arrangements in the proceedings before the Netherlands Commercial Court

      Before or during the proceedings, parties can also agree special arrangements in a customized NCC clause or in another appropriate manner. Such arrangements may include matters such as the following:

      • the law applicable to the substantive dispute
      • the appointment of a court reporter for preparing records of hearings and the costs of preparing those records
      • an agreement on evidence that departs from the general rules
      • the disclosure of confidential documents
      • the submission of a written witness statement prior to the witness examination
      • the manner of taking witness testimony
      • the costs of the proceedings.

      Visiting lawyers and typical course of the procedure

      All acts of process are in principle carried out by a member of the Dutch Bar. Member of the Bar in an EU or EEA Member State or Switzerland may work in accordance with Article 16e of the Advocates Act (in conjunction with a member of the Dutch Bar). Other visiting lawyers may be allowed to speak at any hearing.

      The proceedings will typically follow the below steps:

      • Submitting the initiating document by the plaintiff (summons or request as per Dutch law)
      • Assigned to three judges and a senior law clerk.
      • The defendant submits its defence statement.
      • Case management conference or motion hearing (e.g. also in respect of preliminary issues such as competence, applicable law etc.) where parties may present their arguments.
      • Judgment on motions: the court rules on the motions. Testimony, expert appointment, either at this stage or earlier or later.
      • The court may allow the parties to submit further written statements.
      • Hearing: the court interviews the parties and allows them to present their arguments. The court may enquire whether the dispute could be resolved amicably and, where appropriate, assist the parties in a settlement process. If appropriate, the court may discuss with the parties whether it would be advisable to submit part or all of the dispute to a mediator. At the end of the hearing, the court will discuss with the parties what the next steps should be.
      • Verdict: this may be a final judgment on the claims or an interim judgment ordering one or more parties to produce evidence, allowing the parties to submit written submissions on certain aspects of the case, appointing one or more experts or taking other steps.

      Continuous updates, online resources Netherlands Commercial Court

      As a final note the English language website of the Netherlands Commercial Court provides ample information on procedure and practical issues and is updated with a high frequence. Under current circumstance even at a higher pace. In particular for practitioners it’s recommended to regularly consult the website. https://www.rechtspraak.nl/English/NCC/Pages/default.aspx

      Le operazioni di acquisizione (M&A) in Italia, nella maggior parte dei casi, vengono realizzate attraverso acquisto di partecipazioni (‘share deal’) o di azienda o ramo d’azienda (‘asset deal’). Per ragioni principalmente fiscali sono più frequenti gli share deal rispetto agli asset deal, nonostante l’asset deal consenta una migliore limitazione dei rischi per l’acquirente. Vedremo le principali differenze tra share deal e asset deal in termini di rischi e di rapporti tra venditore e acquirente.

      Preferenza per operazioni di M&A mediante acquisto di partecipazioni (‘share deal’) rispetto ad acquisto di azienda o ramo d’azienda (‘asset deal’) nel mercato italiano

      In Italia, le operazione di acquisizione (M&A) vengono realizzate, nella maggior parte dei casi, attraverso acquisto di partecipazioni (‘share deal’) o di azienda o ramo d’azienda (‘asset deal’). Altre modalità, come la fusione, sono meno frequenti.

      Con l’acquisto di quote o azioni della società acquisita (‘share deal’) l’acquirente acquisisce, indirettamente, l’intero patrimonio aziendale (attività, passività, rapporti) e quindi si fa carico di tutti i rischi relativi alla precedente gestione della società.

      Con l’acquisto dell’azienda o di un ramo d’azienda (‘asset deal’) l’acquirente acquisisce un insieme di beni e rapporti organizzati per l’esercizio dell’impresa (immobili, impianti, dipendenti, contratti, crediti, debiti, ecc.). Il vantaggio dell’asset deal risiede nella possibilità per le parti di definire il perimetro del trasferimento e, quindi, per l’acquirente, di limitare i rischi legali dell’operazione.

      Nonostante questo vantaggio, la maggior parte delle operazioni di acquisizione in Italia avviene attraverso acquisto di partecipazioni. Nel 2018 gli acquisti di partecipazioni (azioni o quote) sono state circa 78.400, mentre le cessioni di azienda sono state circa 35.900 (fonte: www.notariato.it/it/news/dati-statistici-notarili-anno-2018). E va osservato che il dato delle cessioni d’azienda comprende anche le aziende di piccole o piccolissime dimensioni esercitate da imprenditori individuali, per le quali l’alternativa dello share deal (pur praticabile, attraverso il conferimento dell’azienda in una newco e la cessione delle partecipazioni nella newco) non è percorribile in concreto per ragioni di costo.

      Costi fiscali delle operazioni di acquisizione (M&A) in Italia

      La principale ragione della preferenza per l’acquisto di partecipazione (‘share deal’) rispetto all’acquisto di azienda (‘asset deal’) risiede nei costi fiscali dell’operazione. Vediamo quali sono, in linea generale.

      Nell’acquisto di partecipazioni, le imposte dirette a carico del venditore vengono calcolate sulla plusvalenza, secondo le seguenti percentuali:

      • se il venditore è una società di capitali (s.p.a.; s.r.l.; s.a.p.a.) l’aliquota è del 24% della plusvalenza. Ma, a determinate condizioni, si applica il regime della c.d. PEX (participation exemption) con applicazione dell’aliquota del 24% solo sul 5% della plusvalenza.
      • Se il venditore è una persona fisica l’aliquota sulla plusvalenza è del 26%.
      • Se il venditore è una società di persone (s.s.; s.n.c..; s.a.s.) la plusvalenza è integralmente imponibile, tuttavia al ricorrere di determinate condizioni, l’imponibilità è limitata al 60% dell’ammontare della plusvalenza. In entrambi i casi l’aliquota applicabile è quella marginale riferita a ciascun socio a cui il reddito viene imputato per trasparenza.

      Nell’acquisto di partecipazioni si applica l’imposta di registro, normalmente a carico dell’acquirente, di euro 200.

      Anche nell’acquisto di azienda, le imposte dirette a carico del venditore vengono calcolate sulla plusvalenza. Se il venditore è una società di capitali, l’aliquota è del 24% della plusvalenza. Se il venditore è una società di persone (con soci persone fisiche) o un imprenditore individuale, le aliquote dipendono dal reddito del venditore.

      Nell’acquisto di azienda si applicano le imposte indirette, normalmente a carico dell’acquirente, calcolate sulla parte del prezzo attribuibile ai singoli beni trasferiti. Il prezzo è il risultato delle attività trasferite detratte le passività trasferite. Le percentuali sono diverse a seconda del tipo di beni. In generale:

      • ai beni mobili si applica una imposta di registro del 3%;
      • all’avviamento si applica una imposta di registro del 3%;
      • ai fabbricati si applica una imposta di registro del 9% (e imposte ipotecarie e catastali in misura fissa di euro 50 ciascuna);
      • ai terreni si applica una imposta di registro tra il 9 e il 12% (a seconda dell’acquirente) e imposte ipotecarie e catastali in misura fissa di euro 50 ciascuna.

      Nel caso in cui l’azienda sia composta da beni soggetti ad aliquote diverse e le parti abbiano pattuito un corrispettivo unico, senza distinzione in merito al valore attribuibile ai singoli beni, l’imposta deve calcolarsi applicando all’unico corrispettivo pattuito l’aliquota più elevata.

      Va sottolineato che l’Agenzia delle Entrate può sottoporre ad accertamento il valore attribuito dalle parti ai beni immobili e all’avviamento, con conseguente rischio di applicazione di maggiori imposte.

      Share deal e asset deal: rischi e responsabilità verso i terzi

      Nell’acquisto di quote o azioni (‘share deal’) l’acquirente si fa carico, indirettamente, di tutti i rischi relativi alla precedente gestione della società.

      Nell’acquisto dell’azienda o di un ramo d’azienda (‘asset deal’), invece, le parti possono decidere il perimetro del trasferimento (quali beni e rapporti) così stabilendo, nei rapporti tra loro, i rischi che l’acquirente assume.

      Vi sono però alcune norme, che le parti non possono derogare, relative ai rapporti con i terzi, che influiscono significativamente sui rischi per il venditore e l’acquirente e quindi sulla negoziazione dell’accordo tra le parti. Le principali sono le seguenti.

      • Lavoratori dipendenti: il rapporto di lavoro continua con l’acquirente dell’azienda. Il venditore e l’acquirente sono obbligati in solido per tutti i crediti del lavoratore al momento del trasferimento (art. 2112 c.c.).
      • Debiti: il venditore è obbligato al pagamento di tutti i debiti sino alla data del trasferimento. L’acquirente è obbligato per i debiti che risultano dai libri contabili (art. 2560 c.c.).
      • Debiti e responsabilità fiscali: il venditore è obbligato al pagamento di debiti, imposte e sanzioni fiscali relative al periodo sino alla data del trasferimento.
        L’acquirente, in aggiunta all’obbligo relativo ai debiti fiscali che risultano dai libri contabili (art. 2560 c.c.), è responsabile per le imposte e sanzioni, anche se non risultano dai libri contabili, con i seguenti limiti (art. 14 D.lgs. 472/1997):
      • beneficio della preventiva escussione del venditore;
      • fino al valore dell’azienda o del ramo d’azienda acquistato;
      • per le imposte e sanzioni non ancora contestate, la responsabilità riguarda solo quelle relative all’anno della vendita dell’azienda e ai due precedenti; per le imposte e sanzioni relative al periodo anteriore ai due anni precedenti la vendita dell’azienda, la responsabilità riguarda solo quelle contestate entro tale periodo;
      • nei limiti del debito risultante alla data di trasferimento dagli atti degli uffici dell’amministrazione finanziaria. L’Agenzia delle Entrate è tenuta a rilasciare un certificato sull’esistenza di contestazioni in corso e sui debiti. Il certificato negativo, o non rilasciato entro 40 giorni dalla richiesta, libera l’acquirente da responsabilità.
      • Contratti: le parti possono scegliere quali contratti trasferire. Rispetto ai contratti trasferiti, l’acquirente subentra, anche senza il consenso del terzo contraente, nei contratti per l’esercizio dell’azienda che non hanno carattere personale (sono a carattere personale quelli che prevedono da parte del venditore una prestazione oggettivamente infungibile o soggettivamente infungibile). Inoltre il terzo contraente può recedere dal contratto entro tre mesi, se sussiste una giusta causa (ad esempio se l’acquirente non garantisce, per la propria situazione patrimoniale o per capacità tecniche, di poter adempiere al contratto) (art. 2558 c.c.).

      Alcuni strumenti per affrontare i rischi

      Per affrontare i rischi derivanti dalle responsabilità verso i terzi e i rischi generali connessi all’acquisizione, vi sono diversi strumenti negoziali e contrattuali che possono essere utilizzati. Vediamone alcuni.

      Nelle operazioni di acquisto dell’azienda o di rami d’azienda (‘asset deal’):

      • Lavoratori dipendenti: è possibile concordare con il lavoratore modifiche alle condizioni contrattuali e rinunce alla responsabilità solidale dell’acquirente e del venditore (ex art. 2112 c.c.). L’accordo con i lavoratore per essere valido deve essere concluso in sede ‘protetta’ (ad esempio: con l’assistenza delle organizzazioni sindacali).
      • Debiti:
      • trasferire all’acquirente i debiti riducendo il prezzo in misura corrispondente; la riduzione del prezzo comporta, inoltre, una minor costo fiscale dell’operazione. In caso di trasferimento dei debiti, per tutelare il venditore si può ottenere dal creditore una dichiarazione di liberazione del venditore dalla responsabilità ex art. 2560 c.c.; oppure si può prevedere che il pagamento del debito da parte dell’acquirente avvenga contestualmente al trasferimento dell’azienda (‘closing’).
      • Per i debiti non trasferiti all’acquirente, ottenere dal creditore una dichiarazione di liberazione dell’acquirente dalla responsabilità ex art. 2560 c.c.
      • Per i debiti per i quali non sia possibile ottenere la dichiarazione di liberazione da parte del creditore, pattuire forme di garanzia a favore del venditore (per i debiti trasferiti) o a favore dell’acquirente (per i debiti non trasferiti), quali ad esempio la dilazione del pagamento (a favore dell’acquirente) di parte del prezzo, il deposito fiduciario (‘escrow’) di parte del prezzo, fideiussioni bancarie o da parte dei soci.
      • Debiti e responsabilità fiscali:
      • ottenere dall’Agenzia delle Entrate il certificato ex art. 14 D.lgs. 472/1997 sui debiti e le contestazioni in corso;
      • trasferire all’acquirente i debiti riducendo il prezzo in misura corrispondente;
      • pattuire le forme di garanzia a favore del venditore (per i debiti trasferiti) e a favore dell’acquirente (per i debiti non trasferiti o per le contestazioni che non sono ancora debiti), quali ad esempio quelle sopra esposte per i debiti in generale.
      • Contratti: per quelli che vengono trasferiti:
      • verificare che le prestazioni a carico del venditore sino alla data del trasferimento siano state regolarmente adempiute, per evitare il rischio di contestazioni del terzo contraente che possono bloccare l’esecuzione del contratto;
      • almeno per i contratti più importanti (e salvo ragioni di riservatezza), cercare di ottenere conferma dal terzo contraente del benestare al trasferimento del contratto.

      Nelle operazioni di acquisto di partecipazioni (‘share deal’), in cui l’acquirente si fa carico, indirettamente, di tutti i rischi relativi alla precedente gestione della società, alcuni strumenti sono:

      • Due diligence. Svolgere una approfondita due diligence legale, fiscale e contabile sulla società, per valutare preventivamente i rischi e gestirli nella trattativa e nei contratti.
      • Dichiarazioni e garanzie (‘R&W’) e indennizzo. Prevedere nel contratto di acquisizione (‘share purchase agreement’) un set dettagliato di dichiarazioni e garanzie – e obblighi di indennizzo in caso di non conformità – a carico del venditore relativamente alla situazione della società (‘business warranties’: bilancio; situazione patrimoniale di riferimento; contratti; contenzioso; rispetto della normativa ambientale; autorizzazioni per lo svolgimento dell’attività; debiti; crediti ecc.). La trattativa sulle dichiarazioni e garanzie normalmente recepisce, gestendoli, gli esiti della due diligence (ad esempio: viene escluso dalle dichiarazioni e garanzie e dall’indennizzo un contenzioso emerso in due diligence, del quale le parti tengono conto nella definizione del prezzo). La pattuizione di dichiarazioni e garanzie sulla situazione della società (‘business warranties’) e dell’obbligo di indennizzo sono necessari negli share deal in Italia, in quanto in mancanza di tali clausole l’acquirente non può ottenere dal venditore (salvo situazioni estreme e molto rare) un risarcimento o indennizzo in caso la situazione della società sia diversa da quella considerata al momento dell’acquisto (così ad esempio: Cass. Civ. 16963/2014).
      • Garanzie per l’acquirente. Strumenti per garantire all’acquirente l’effettiva possibilità di ottenere l’indennizzo (o parte dell’indennizzo) in caso di non conformità delle dichiarazioni e garanzie. Tra queste: (a) la dilazione del pagamento di parte del prezzo; (b) il versamento di parte del prezzo in un deposito fiduciario (‘escrow’) per la durata delle dichiarazioni e garanzie e, in caso di contestazioni, fino a che la contestazione non è definita; (c) fideiussione bancaria;; (d) polizza W&I, contratto di assicurazione che copre il rischio dell’acquirente in caso di violazioni di dichiarazioni e garanzie, sino ad un importo massimo (ed esclusi alcuni rischi).

      Altri fattori che incidono sulla scelta tra share deal e asset deal

      Naturalmente la scelta di realizzare un’operazione di acquisizione in Italia mediante share deal o asset deal, dipende anche da altri fattori oltre a quello dei costi fiscali dell’operazione. Eccone alcuni.

      • Acquisto di parte del business. Si sceglie l’asset deal, quando l’operazione non riguarda l’acquisto dell’intera azienda del venditore ma solo una sua parte (un ramo d’azienda).
      • Situazione della società problematica. Si sceglie l’asset deal quando la situazione della società target è così problematica che l’acquirente non è disponibile ad assumere tutti i rischi derivanti dalla precedente gestione, ma solo parte di essi.
      • Mantenimento di un ruolo da parte del venditore. Si sceglie lo share deal quando si vuole conservare al venditore un ruolo nella società acquisita. In questo caso, oltre ad un ruolo nel management, è frequente il mantenimento da parte del venditore di una partecipazione di minoranza, con clausole di exit (diritti di put e call) decorso un certo periodo di tempo. Clausole che, spesso, legano il prezzo ai risultati futuri e, quindi, nell’interesse dell’acquirente incentivano il venditore nel ruolo manageriale e, nell’interesse del venditore, valorizzano prospettive reddituali non concretizzate al momento dell’acquisto.

      Dal 1° agosto 2021 non sarà più necessario, per la costituzione di una SRL – società a responsabilità limitata, recarsi dal notaio: la procedura potrà anche essere realizzata completamente on line, salvo casi eccezionali. Ciò è previsto dalla Direttiva U.E. 2019/1151, che impone agli stati di adeguarsi entro due anni. Vediamo cosa prevede la Direttiva.

      Come si costituisce una S.r.l. in Italia oggi

      In Italia, per costituire una società e, in particolare, una società a responsabilità limitata, è sempre necessario rivolgersi ad un notaio.

      Ciò vale anche per la c.d. «SRL semplificata», introdotta nel 2012 dal Decreto Legge «Liberalizzazioni». In questo caso, infatti, la legge prevede che, a fronte dell’utilizzo di uno statuto standard non modificabile, non vi siano oneri notarili da sostenere. Tuttavia, resta sempre necessario comparire avanti ad un notaio.

      Cosa cambierà da agosto 2021 con il recepimento della Direttiva U.E. 2019/1151

      Le cose dovranno cambiare con l’entrata in vigore della Direttiva U.E. 2019/1151, che modifica la Direttiva U.E. 2017/1132 in tema di uso di strumenti e processi digitali nel diritto societario.

      Entro il 1° agosto 2021, gli Stati membri dovranno aggiornare le procedure per la costituzione di una società in modo da garantire un doppio binario.

      Dovrà, cioè, essere possibile costituire una società sia con il metodo tradizionale, ossia rivolgendosi ad un notaio, oppure con procedure esclusivamente on line.

      Due eccezioni

      • l’art. 13-ter, par. 4, dispone che «ove sia giustificato da motivi di interesse pubblico per impedire l’usurpazione o l’alterazione di identità, gli Stati membri possono adottare misure che potrebbero richiedere la presenza fisica ai fini della verifica dell’identità del richiedente dinanzi a un’autorità o a qualsiasi persona od organismo incaricati… Gli Stati membri provvedono affinché la presenza fisica del richiedente possa essere richiesta solo se vi sono motivi di sospettare una falsificazione dell’identità e garantiscono che qualsiasi altra fase della procedura possa essere completata online»;
      • l’art. 13-octies, co. 8, dispone che «ove giustificato da motivi di interesse pubblici a garantire il rispetto delle norme sulla capacità giuridica e sull’autorità dei richiedenti di rappresentare una società, qualsiasi autorità o qualsiasi persona od organismo incaricato… può chiedere la presenza fisica del richiedente… Gli Stati membri garantiscono che tutte le altre fasi della procedura possano essere comunque completate on line».

      Gli Stati membri dovranno mettere a disposizione i modelli necessari per la costituzione delle società a responsabilità limitata «in almeno una lingua ufficiale dell’Unione ampiamente compresa dal maggior numero possibile di utenti transfrontalieri».

      Rischi

      La direttiva rappresenta, indubbiamente, un interessante tentativo di semplificazione, il cui successo dipenderà, tuttavia, da come verrà recepita dai singoli Stati membri.

      I rischi principali sono almeno due:

      1. il primo, facilmente intuibile, è che gli Stati membri rendano troppo oneroso l’accertamento dell’identità od il potere rappresentativo dei richiedenti, rendendo più semplice, in definitiva, il tradizionale ricorso ad un notaio;
      2. il secondo è che le procedure on line siano poco chiare o comprensibili, specie agli utenti stranieri. In tal senso, non appare sufficiente che i modelli siano resi disponibili, ma sarà necessario che le procedure online siano orientate alla maggiore semplificazione possibile e che i modelli siano tutti disponibili almeno in lingua inglese.

      Infine, è evidente che la digitalizzazione del procedimento di costituzione di una società non elimina l’opportunità di rivolgersi ad un professionista con il compito di consigliare il cliente nelle scelte che sarà necessario fare, ad esempio in materia di corporate governance.

      A legal due diligence of a Brazilian target company should analyze the existence and the content of Agency Agreements, including values paid to the agent and the nature of such payments and the factual situation of the target’s agents, in order to evaluate potential contingencies.

      One usual suspect in legal due diligences of Brazilian target companies in M&A transactions that should not be overlooked is the existence of agency agreements, due to:

      • the obligation to indemnify the agent stipulated by law: at least 1/12th of all commissions paid throughout the entire term of the agency agreement; and
      • the risks for the agency being disregarded and considered as an employment relationship, subjecting the principal to compensate the agent as an employee with all rights, benefits, taxes and social contributions.

      This should be considered for evaluation of potential contingencies and the impacts on the valuation of the target.

      No doubt that agents can be an important component of the sales force of the business and can be strategic for the activity of the principal, in view of a certain independence and for not increasing the payroll of a company.

      On the other hand, under Brazilian laws, the protective nature of the agency demands the principal a considerable level of attention.

      Indemnification

      Brazilian Federal Law No. 4,886/65 as amended – the Brazilian Agency Law – determines that the agent is entitled to, at the termination of an agency agreement, receive an indemnification of 1/12th calculated over all the commissions paid throughout the duration of the entire period of the agency agreement.

      The Brazilian Agency Law stipulates that if the parties sign a new contract within 6 months after the expiration of the previous, the relation between agent and principal shall be deemed as the same relationship and thus, the duration to calculate the indemnification shall encompass the entire period (past and subsequent contract).

      Termination by the agent

      The Brazilian Agency Law also stipulates situations that agent could terminate the contract and still be entitled to receive the 1/12th indemnification:

      • reduction of the activities in disagreement with the contractual stipulation
      • breach of exclusivity (territory and/or products), if so stipulated in the agreement
      • determination of prices that makes the agency unfeasible and
      • default on payment of the commissions
      • force majeure

      Termination without cause

      Termination without cause can be done, upon payment to agent of the indemnification and with a previous notice of at least 30 days, in which situation the agent shall receive the payment of 1/3 of the remuneration received during the previous 90 days prior to the termination.

      Can principal avoid the indemnification?

      The only cases where the 1/12th indemnification would not be applicable are when the contract is terminated by principal with cause. The Brazilian Agency Law has limited situations for principal to terminate the contract with cause:

      • acts by agent causing disrepute of the principal
      • breach of obligations related to the agency activities
      • criminal conviction related to honor, reputation

      These situations shall be clearly demonstrated. Producing the sufficiently strong evidence of the facts to configure cause for termination may not be an easy task, considering some of the facts may be subject to construing and interpreting by the parties, witnesses and ultimately the judge.

      As a result, from past experiences, it is rare to see principals in conditions not to incur in the 1/12th indemnification.

      Potential risk: configuring employment relationship

      In addition to the indemnification, the activities developed by the agent could eventually be deemed as performed by a regular employee of the principal and, in this case, principal could be subject to compensate the agent as an employee.

      Agent vs. employee

      For the appreciation of the employment relationship, the individual acting as agent shall file a labor claim and demonstrate the existence of the employment relationship.

      The Labor Court judge will consider the factual situation, prevailing upon the written agreements or other formal documents. The judge may rely on e-mails, witnesses and other evidence.

      The elements of an employment relationship are:

      • Individual: in case the individual acts by himself to perform the services; Personal services: the services are in fact performed by the individual specifically to the Principal;;
      • Non-eventuality – exclusivity: the services are rendered in a regular basis;
      • Subordination: key factor – the individual has to follow strict instructions directed by principal, such as reporting to an employee of the principal, determined visits;
      • Rewarding – fixed remuneration: the individual is awarded regular amounts and expenses allowances

      In the event the individual can demonstrate the existence of the elements to configure an employment relationship, he/she could have an award to entitle him/her to have his remuneration considered as of a regular employee for the last 5 years.

      As a result, the individual would be awarded the payment of Christmas bonus (equivalent to 1 monthly remuneration per year), vacation allowance (1/3 of a monthly remuneration per year), unemployment guarantee fund (1 monthly remuneration per year) plus other benefits that he/she would be given as an employee of principal (based on the collective bargaining agreement between the employees’ and employers’ unions). The company would also be obliged to make the payment of the co-related social security contributions.

      Needless to say, the result could turn into a considerable potential contingency.

      The author of this article is Paulo Yamaguchi

      Uno dei momenti più delicati di qualsiasi operazione di M&A è sicuramente il momento in cui si affronta il tema delle «garanzie», in particolare con riferimento alla situazione economica, patrimoniale e finanziaria della società o dell’azienda (o di un ramo d’azienda), ovvero le c.d. «business warranties».

      Da un lato, infatti, il compratore vorrebbe «blindare» quanto più possibile il proprio investimento, riducendo al minimo il rischio di sorprese. Al contrario, il venditore vorrebbe contenere il più possibile le garanzie offerte, che spesso si traducono in un limite temporaneo al pieno godimento dei frutti della vendita, di cui magari necessita per effettuare un altro investimento.

      È bene precisare, innanzi tutto, che con il termine «garanzie» si fa normalmente riferimento, in modo atecnico, ad un articolato set di previsioni contrattuali contenenti:

      • le dichiarazioni del venditore circa lo stato di salute della società o dell’azienda (o del ramo d’azienda) ceduta;
      • gli obblighi d’indennizzo assunti dal venditore in caso di «violazione» (ossia non corrispondenza al vero) delle dichiarazioni rese;
      • gli strumenti previsti al fine di assicurare l’effettività degli obblighi d’indennizzo assunti.

      Vi sono diverse ragioni per cui tale set è necessario, ma la principale è che nei contratti di M&A non trovano applicazione le garanzie civilistiche sulle vendita se non limitatamente al bene venduto, pertanto, se il bene venduto sono le partecipazioni, le garanzie non coprono gli asset sottostanti della società, e, nei casi eccezionali in cui trovano applicazione, i termini brevi e le limitazioni stringenti rendono, comunque, opportuna l’assunzione di obbligazioni accessorie volte a garantire il buon esito economico dell’operazione.

      Ciò è confermato dalla pratica: nelle operazioni di M&A non vi è contratto che non includa il set delle garanzie.

      Le dichiarazioni, in particolare, recepiscono normalmente la due diligence svolta dal compratore, preceduta, a sua volta, da un non disclosure agreement (NDA), finalizzato a tutelare le informazioni messe a disposizione.

      Eventuali criticità che dovessero emergere dovranno essere adeguatamente riportate. Ovviamente, non è detto che un’eventuale criticità, laddove si concretizzi, debba necessariamente far scattare un obbligo d’indennizzo. Spetterà alle parti regolamentare tale aspetto, potendo anche prevedere che il relativo rischio resti a carico del compratore, magari a fronte di una riduzione del prezzo.

      In merito all’obbligo d’indennizzo dovranno poi essere attentamente negoziati alcuni aspetti. I principali sono sicuramente:

      • la durata (es. maggiore per le garanzie fiscali);
      • a chi spetta l’eventuale indennizzo (al compratore o alla società; all’uno o all’altra a seconda dei casi);
      • eventuali detrazioni e /o limitazioni (es. perdite fiscali);
      • l’importo massimo indennizzabile;
      • un’eventuale franchigia;
      • la procedura d’indennizzo (es. termini per la richiesta, procedura di composizione, situazioni particolari, etc.).

      Si tratta di aspetti importantissimi, che non devono essere sottovalutati. È chiaro, ad esempio, che non disciplinare adeguatamente la procedura d’indennizzo rischia di vanificare tutto il lavoro fatto prima.

      Infine, dovranno essere previsti strumenti idonei al fine di assicurare la tutela effettiva del compratore. Tra questi, quelli più tradizionali sono:

      • la fideiussione;
      • il contratto autonomo di garanzia;
      • il deposito fiduciario («escrow»);
      • la dilazione di pagamento;
      • il meccanismo di «earn out»;
      • il c.d. «price adjustment»;
      • la lettera di patronage;
      • il pegno e/o l’ipoteca.

      Si tratta di strumenti tutti più o meno largamente utilizzati nella pratica, che presentano ciascuno dei pro e dei contro.

      Qui, tuttavia, vogliamo occuparci di un nuovo strumento di natura assicurativa, a cui si sta cominciando a fare ricorso negli ultimi tempi: le c.d. «Polizze Warranty & Indemnity».

      Con una polizza W&I, in pratica, l’assicuratore, a fronte del pagamento di un premio, assume su di sé il rischio derivante dalla violazione delle dichiarazioni contenute in un contratto di M&A.

      Presupposto fondamentale, ovviamente, è che la violazione derivi da fatti antecedenti al closing e non noti in quel momento (e, quindi, non evidenziati dalla due diligence effettuata).

      La polizza può essere sottoscritta dal compratore (buyer side) o dal venditore (seller side). Di regola è preferita la prima soluzione. Tali polizze W&I presentano numerosi vantaggi:

      • si ottiene una garanzia a fronte di un venditore non sempre disponibile ad impegnarsi contrattualmente;
      • la polizza generalmente non prevede l’ipotesi di regresso nei confronti del venditore, salvo il caso di dolo, per cui il venditore è integralmente liberato;
      • è possibile ottenere un massimale maggiore di quello previsto nel contratto di compravendita;
      • analogamente, la copertura può essere prevista per un periodo più lungo;
      • si facilitano le relazioni con il venditore, specie nel caso ci siano più venditori ed alcuni di essi restino nella società, magari occupando un posto nel Consiglio d’Amministrazione;
      • si facilita notevolmente il processo d’indennizzo, specie nel caso in cui ci siano più venditori, magari persone fisiche;
      • il compratore riesce ad avere una maggiore certezza di solvibilità.

      Il costo della polizza potrebbe essere condiviso tra le parti, eventualmente con uno sconto del prezzo, che il venditore potrebbe essere disposto a concedere tenuto conto del fatto che non dovrà rilasciare altre garanzie e potrà godere immediatamente dei frutti della vendita.

      Il premio è normalmente compreso tra l’1% ed il 2% del limite d’indennizzo previsto (con un premio minimo).

      Attualmente, i limiti principali di questo strumento paiono essere, oltre al prezzo, che rende lo strumento adatto principalmente ad operazioni di importo non piccolo, la franchigia standard normalmente prevista, pari all’1% dell’Enterprise Value del Target, riducibile allo 0,5% a fronte di un innalzamento del premio. Da tenere presente inoltre che la polizza W&I implica la revisione della due diligence da parte della compagnia, che può tradursi in un intervento attivo nella negoziazione delle garanzie.

      A parte ciò, lo strumento è da considerare attentamente: in presenza di situazioni particolarmente complesse, potrebbe rappresentare la giusta soluzione per sbloccare situazioni di stallo negoziale e rendere più agevoli negoziazioni tra investitori professionali e PMI.

      The procedure to incorporate a foreign owned company in Spain is, in principle, easy and straight forward, however it is necessary to take into account certain new requirements derived from the tax and the anti-money laundering regulations, which could cause long delays in the incorporation process, even to EU and US companies, if they are not well advised and managed from the beginning of the procedure.

      The first step consist in collecting information about the foreign shareholder, in order to be able to prove its legal existence and activities: the foreign shareholder(s) will have to grant before a Notary Public in its country of residence a power of attorney authorising somebody in Spain to obtain its tax identification number (“NIE”), and also represent it before the Spanish notary when signing the deed of incorporation. In case the foreign shareholder is an individual person, the NIE should be applied for before the Spanish police or the Spanish Consulate at the country where the investor lives.

      If the shareholder is a corporation, apart from the Power of Attorney, it will have to obtain a certificate from its Companies’ Registry or Chamber of Commerce, stating its legal existence and main characteristics. This document is called “good standing certificate” (in the UK and US), “K-bis” (in France), “KvK” (in the Netherlands) or “visura” (in Italy). These two documents, the Power of Attorney mentioned in the above paragraph and the certificate from the Companies’ Registry, will have to be Apostilled or legalized by the correspondent Ministry, and Sworn translated into Spanish. Please note that we use to draft bilingual powers of attorney in order to avoid its sworn translation.

      The foreign shareholder will have to prove that its income is obtained from legal activities in order to be able to open a bank account in the name of the new company. The main document to prove this could be the Corporate or the Personal Income Tax return filed in its country of residence, but there could be other means, especially in case of individual persons.

      In case of a corporate shareholder, it will be necessary as well to declare, in principle through a public deed granted in Spain, who are the individual persons who, directly or through other companies, will hold more than a 25% interest in the new company to be incorporated. In case nobody holds more than a 25% (i.e. because there are 5 individual shareholders, holding each of them a 20%), it is declared that the effective control of the new company corresponds to its director.

      At this stage, it is also necessary to mention that the person(s) who will be the director(s) of the new company, in case they are foreigners, will also need to obtain their personal “NIE”. The NIE should be applied for before the Spanish police (this could be done by a proxy duly authorised though a Power of Attorney granted by the foreign director) or before the Spanish Consulate nearest to the city where the investor lives. In order to be a director of a Spanish company it is not necessary to be a shareholder, nor to have residence and work permit in Spain (provided the foreign director does not live in Spain).

      Meanwhile the necessary documents (Powers of Attorney, Companies’ Registry certificate, etc.) are being prepared by the foreign shareholder, the lawyer in Spain will apply for the new company’s name. It is advisable to point out that generic or usual names are not available quite often, therefore it is necessary to think in original names. Three different names could be applied for simultaneously.

      The drafting of the company’s Articles of Association or By Laws could be very quick, except if the company is going to have several shareholders and they wish specific clauses. In this case, it is also advisable to draft a Shareholders Agreement. The Shareholders’ Agreement could just contain some basic rules on dedication, compensation, non-competition, etc. and some more sophisticated rules on the sale of shares (tag along and drag along rights). As regards the By-Laws, they should mention the company’s name, its activity or activities, address in Spain –which cannot be just a P.O. Box-, share capital, number of shares and its face value, and starting date for the fiscal year, among other standard clauses.

      The management of the company could be organized through a sole director, two directors who could act jointly or separately, and in case there are more than three directors, they should organize themselves through a Board of Directors, being usual in this case to appoint a C.E.O. In order to be a director it is not necessary to be a shareholder. Under Spanish laws, the director(s) could be held liable for some company’s debts under certain circumstances which are legally defined. For this reason, it is necessary that the directors formally accept their appointment (personally appearing before the Notary or through a Power of Attorney).

      Before the incorporation, it will be necessary that either the new company’s director (the person to be appointed) or the representative of the corporate shareholder appears personally before the bank where the company will have its first bank account and signs the correspondent documents (KYC regulation). Once the bank account is opened, the shareholder will have to send a bank transfer for the new company’s share capital. In Spain, the minimum share capital for a limited company (S.L.) is Euros 3.000, while for a “Sociedad Anónima” (S.A.) it is Euros 60.000, but only 25% should be paid off at the incorporation moment. It is interesting to note that contributions to the share capital could be made in cash – which is the most common operation, especially at the incorporation – or in kind, with any type of assets: real estate, machinery, goods, trademarks, etc. The money for the share capital should be sent to the new company’s bank account from an account owned by the shareholder (or from each account owned by each shareholder, should they be several ones), not by any other different person. Once the Spanish bank receives the transfer, it will issue a certificate, which is necessary in order to incorporate the company.

      Once all the documents are ready, it is possible within very few days (almost immediately) to make the appointment with the Notary and sign the public deed of incorporation. This can be done at any notary in Spain, not being necessary that the notary practises at the same city where the company will have its corporate address. In order to summarize, the list of the necessary documents is:

      • Power(s) of Attorney granted by the foreign shareholder(s), apostilled and sworn translated.
      • Certificate regarding the legal existence of the foreign shareholder (only if it is a corporation), apostilled and sworn translated.
      • Statement on who are the last individual shareholders holding more than 25% interest in the new company, directly or indirectly (only in case of corporate shareholders).
      • NIE of the foreign shareholder(s).
      • NIE of the new company’s director(s), should they be a foreigners.
      • Certificate for the new company’s name.
      • Articles of Association.
      • Bank certificate regarding the contribution to the new company’s share capital.

      The deed of incorporation is signed by the proxy (or the individual shareholder(s), should they prefer to personally appear before the notary) before the chosen public notary, being also necessary to sign an official form to report the foreign investment to a public registry depending on the Spanish Ministry of Finance.

      Once the deed of incorporation is signed, the next steps consist in applying before the tax authorities to obtain the new company’s tax number (NIF / CIF) and filing the deed of incorporation before the Companies’ Registry. Some banks do allow new companies to operate once they have the NIF (which could be 2-3 days after the incorporation), while others request to wait until the deed of incorporation is filed at the Companies’ Registry (2-3 weeks).

      An estimation of the necessary time to complete all the procedure is 30-45 days, but of course the main delay is related to speed of the foreign investor in obtaining the necessary documents.

      Please note that if you wish to incorporate a foreign owned company in Spain it is always necessary to seek specific professional advice, as each case is different and regulations and the application of such regulations vary from time to time. The above article just explains the main steps and requirements for the incorporation of a company.

      In all M&A operations one of the issues that deserves special attention as regards its analysis, ascertainment and negotiation is the tax liabilities. Even though the parties could agree on the amount of such contingencies, to negotiate the possible guarantees that the seller should grant in order to protect the buyer from a possible claim by the tax authorities, the term during which the guarantees should be in force, and to agree on the communication mechanisms between the parties (buyer and seller) and the legal defense strategies if such claim from the tax authorities arises, requires substantial negotiation efforts.

      When the acquisition operation is formalized not through the purchase of shares, but through the purchase of the assets that form a business unit, the Spanish General Tax Law (“Ley General Tributaria” or “LGT”) provides a mechanism which implies an exception to the general principle provided by article 42 of the same law. Article 42 of LGT establishes the joint liability of the purchaser of a business unit for the tax liabilities of the selling company (“tax liability derived from company’s succession”). That is, in principle, according to article 42 of the LGT “the persons or entities that continue by any mean in the ownership or exercise of economic activities (the buyers) will be jointly liable with the previous owner for the tax liabilities derived from the exercise of such economic activities incurred by such previous owner”.

      However, the joint tax liability of the buyer could be limited through the application before the tax authorities of the tax certificate regulated by article 175.2 of the LGT. This certificate should be applied for by the prospective buyer, with the authorization of the present owner (the seller), and, once issued, the tax liability of the buyer becomes limited to the debts, penalties and liabilities mentioned in the certificate. If the certificate is issued without mentioning any amount, or if the tax authorities do not issue it within a three months term from the application’s date, the applicant (the buyer) will be released from any tax liability derived from company’s succession.

      The tax certificate for succession purposes includes the main taxes, as Value Added Tax and Corporate Income Tax, and can include as well debts derived from the withholding taxes on employees’ payroll, which in case of companies with a big number of employees could be of an outstanding amount. However, the buyer’s joint liability for salaries, related payroll amounts and social security contributions cannot be limited by such certificate, and such liability will always be joint with the business unit seller’s liability.

      The application for the tax certificate should be filed before the acquisition of the business unit is completed, even if the issuance of the certificate takes place later tan the closing date (but of course, it is wiser to not close the acquisition before having the certificate). The certificate’s validity lasts for one year, as regards periodical tax obligations (for example, Value Added Tax, Corporate Income Tax and withholding taxes on salaries) and for three months as regards non periodical tax obligations.

      It is very important to apply for the right tax certificate (“certificate for succession purposes according to article 175.2 of LGT”), and to not make a mistake and apply, for example, for the certificate regarding having fulfilled all tax obligations (“certificado de estar al corriente de las obligaciones fiscales”). Case law is plenty of judgments where a buyer applied for the wrong certificate, which showed no liabilities, and later on such buyer has been sentenced to pay the tax liabilities incurred by the previous owner of the business unit.

      When M&A transactions in Brazil are deemed not successful by the investor the main reason for underperformance is generally the existence of debts or fiscal/labor contingencies materialized higher than evaluated, or unexpected material adverse changes.

      The reasons for overlooking the debts and fiscal/labor contingencies is often the rush to close the investment. Either for avoiding a competitor to acquire the target, or to keep the leading position of the market share, for certain cases, the buyers may have not paid proper attention to what their advisors had to say before closing the deal.

      1. Local legal advisors

      The legal advisors may take, for the perception of the executives eager to complete an acquisition, a bit longer than expected to round up facts and properly report the risks found. The perception for this lower pace to reach out the conclusions may differ from the executives due to the delay of seller to provide documents or clarify questions raised.

      Slowing down a bit to the benefit of certainty is a sound advice.

      Experienced Brazilian advisors shall always be included among the teams. Their knowledge on facing subtle change of applicable laws, rules or predominant court decisions is certainly valuable for better understanding the status of the target and the ways to mitigate risks.

      Certain facts may not seem at first as significant risk for first timers dealing with Brazilian matters. However, the advisors do have a reason to raise the point and should be properly heard. Examples such as absence of one single clear certificate issued by a government department or a missing report on disposal of solid residues, that may not seem a big issue, could turn into a risk of suspension of activities of a plant.

      An audit company is usually hired to identify tax and labor contingencies, but the audit company does not evaluate nor assess the numbers, only the maximum exposure. The legal advisors are in charge of the risk assessment and determination of the estimate of the contingencies. It is up to the buyer to accept and negotiate the relevant coverage for such contingencies.

      Seller may not give full details of all issues of the target at first. It is the role of the advisors to investigate, request further documents and clarification to bring matters that affect the business to buyer’s attention. In a good faith scenario, seller would be willing to discuss the matters, to avoid future disputes or frustrations to buyer.

      1. Debt

      Charges, penalties, interests and other compensations in financial operations turns these contracts full of minor details and very complex in anywhere in the world. Brazilian contracts are not exception. That is the reason why a proper assessment of the financial operations and obtain the real picture of the debt and related costs.

      As usual, attention to change of control provisions are also relevant to mitigate risks – absence of consent or non-compliance of the required steps prior to closing the operation can cause acceleration of the financial operation and trigger cross-default provisions in other contracts that can also lead to acceleration of the financial operations.

      1. Tax/labor contingencies

      Calculation and estimate of tax contingencies are specific for each tax and requires knowledge and a sound judgment to estimate exposure and appoint measures to cover the risks. Same level of care applies to labor-related contingencies.

      Tax and labor matters are usually the most relevant risks to be observed in a Brazilian target. Complexity of regulation and the amount of obligations to fulfill makes these points significant.

      1. Material adverse change

      Material adverse change clauses – “MAC Clauses” – are contractual provisions to mitigate negative effects or a substantial change to the parties. These provisions are admitted in Brazilian law, in view the M&A transaction documents are executed in good faith and respecting the parties’ freedom to commit to certain obligations.

      Needless to say, the MAC Clauses should contain crystal clear language, with objective description of the facts, well defined applicable time period, cause and consequences duly described for proper and easy execution. If not, determination of MAC Clause event shall end on a dispute.

      In the absence of MAC Clauses, Brazilian Civil Code contemplates the ability to any party in a continuous contractual relation to seek for the termination of the contract, by virtue of extraordinary and unpredictable facts, in the event such party is affected with excessive onus and generates extreme advantage to another party. Determination whether the parties were subject to extraordinary and unpredictable facts would depend nevertheless on ruling by a judge or arbitrator, as provided in the acquisition documents.

      1. Guarantees and Indemnification

      For avoidance of future problems, the buyer should obtain strong and prompt executable guarantees. The (a) ability to withhold payments, (b) deposit of part of the purchase price in escrow account with clear rules for withdrawing the escrow amount are most likely measures to ensure a prompt indemnification. From previous experiences, other guarantees like pledge of shares, personal guarantee, lien or even chattel mortgage over real property are harder to execute and indemnify the prejudiced party.

      De minimis clauses (minimum amount for a party to be indemnified – if not reached, the prejudiced party is not going to receive any indemnification) or basket (limitation of indemnifiable amount) are additions to the provisions for guarantees also acceptable for Brazilian M&A transactions.

      The experienced advisors will make a difference to assist on the drafting of these provisions and to reflect what the parties discussed and agreed on the table.

      1. Break-up Fees

      A conscious buyer will certainly avoid the risk of incurring in heavy break-up fees, with proper assessment provided by competent advisors of what may happen until closing. Nevertheless, in certain cases, even after signing a binding document, it might make sense paying a break-up fee even if substantial rather than entering into a risky transaction.

      Recent Brazilian M&A transactions have included break-up fees, applicable in case of the regulatory restrictions are too high or in case the buyer gives up the acquisition. The highest break-up fee known was included in an offer made by Paper Excellence (member of Asia Pulp and Paper, based in Indonesia) was BRL 4 billion (over USD 1 billion or around EUR 900 million). The deal was not closed as another bidder had better credit check (even proposing lower break-up fees).

      In 2015, Ânima paid BRL 46 million (around USD 12.5 million or EUR 10.6 million) of break-up fees to Whitney do Brasil – education sector – for giving up the acquisition due to changes on students’ public financing rules. In 2018, Ultragaz paid BRL 280 million (around USD 75 million or EUR 64 million) in break-up fees to Liquigás, due to the veto by the Brazilian antitrust authority for the operation.

      1. Recommendations

      In this regard, the recommendations to avoid the referred reasons for a not satisfactory failure in M&A transactions in Brazil are:

      • Rely on local advisors: make sure that local Brazilian experts are included in the advisory team – the proper Brazilian legal, accountancy, tax and business experts can provide you with the necessary and valuable information for the proper decision-making process;
      • Listen to what the local advisors have to say: some matters raised may not seem to harm the deal, but it is important to let your advisor give you the full explanation and the reasons why the advisor is concerned about the topic. The advisor has a reason to bring the matters to discussion;
      • On the buy-side, ensure the existence of proper guarantees – feasible and enforceable – for prompt reimbursement of the losses, instead of discussions or long disputes;
      • Be very attentive in the preparation and discussion of the indemnification, procedure for indemnifying a prejudiced party, accommodating the business negotiation and the coverage to the risks explained by the advisors;
      • MAC Clauses shall be clear, precise and objective; and
      • However hard may be, it might make sense paying a break-up fee instead of completing a risky transaction.

      The author of this article is Paulo Yamaguchi

      Simone Rossi

      Aree di attività

      • Diritto societario
      • Contratti
      • M&A
      • Fallimentare
      • Private Equity
      Contatta Simone

      Scrivi a Simone





        Leggi la privacy policy di Legalmondo.
        Questo sito è protetto da reCAPTCHA e si applicano le Norme sulla privacy e i Termini di servizio di Google.

        How to incorporate a company in Spain

        29 Gennaio 2019

        • Spagna
        • M&A

        This week the Interim Injunction Judge of the Netherlands Commercial Court ruled in summary proceedings, following a video hearing, in a case on a EUR 169 million transaction where the plaintiff argued that the final transaction had been concluded and the defendant should proceed with the deal.

        This in an – intended – transaction where the letter of intent stipulates that a EUR 30 million break fee is due when no final agreement is signed.

        In addition to ruling on this question of construction of an agreement under Dutch law, the judge also had to rule on the break fee if no agreement was concluded and whether it should be amended or reduced because of the current Coronavirus / Covid-19 crisis.

        English Language proceedings in a Dutch state court, the Netherlands Commercial Court (NCC)

        The case is not just interesting because of the way contract formation is construed under Dutch law and application of concepts of force majeure, unforeseen circumstances and amendment of agreements under the concepts of reasonableness and fairness as well as mitigation of contractual penalties, but also interesting because it was ruled on by a judge of the English language chamber of the Netherlands Commercial Court (NCC).

        This new (2019) Dutch state court offers a relatively fast and cost-effective alternative for international commercial litigation, and in particular arbitration, in a neutral jurisdiction with professional judges selected for both their experience in international disputes and their command of English.

        The dispute regarding the construction of an M&A agreement under Dutch law in an international setting

        The facts are straightforward. Parties (located in New York, USA and the Netherlands) dispute whether final agreement on the EUR 169 million transaction has been reached but do agree a break fee of €30 million in case of non-signature of the final agreement was agreed. However, in addition to claiming there is no final agreement, the defendant also argues that the break fee – due when there is no final agreement – should be reduced or changed due to the coronavirus crisis.

        As to contract formation it must be noted that Dutch law allows broad leeway on how to communicate what may or may not be an offer or acceptance. The standard is what a reasonable person in the same circumstances would have understood their communications to mean.  Here, the critical fact is that the defendant did not sign the so-called “Transaction Agreement”. The letter of intent’s binary mechanism (either execute and deliver the paperwork for the Transaction Agreement by the agreed date or pay a EUR 30 million fee) may not have been an absolute requirement for contract formation (under Dutch law) but has significant evidentiary weight. In M&A practice – also under Dutch law – with which these parties are thoroughly familiar with, this sets a very high bar for  concluding a contract was agreed other than by explicit written agreement. So, parties may generally comfortably rely on what they have agreed on in writing with the assistance of their advisors.

        The communications relied on by claimant in this case did not clear the very high bar to assume that despite the mechanism of the letter of intent and the lack of a signed Transaction Agreement there still was a binding agreement. In particular attributing the other party’s advisers’ statements and/or conduct to the contracting party they represent did not work for the claimant in this case as per the verdict nothing suggested that the advisers would be handling everything, including entering into the agreement.

        Court order for actual performance of a – deemed – agreement on an M&A deal?

        The Interim Injunction Judge finds that there is not a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits so as to justify an interim measure ordering the defendant to actually perform its obligations under the disputed Transaction Agreement (payment of EUR 169 million and take the claimant’s 50% stake in an equestrian show-jumping business).

        Enforcement of the break fee despite “Coronavirus”?

        Failing the conclusion of an agreement, there was still another question to answer as the letter of intent mechanism re the break fee as such was not disputed. Should the Court enforce the full EUR 30 million fee in the current COVID-19 circumstances? Or should the fee’s effects be modified, mitigated or reduced in some way, or  the fee agreement should even be dissolved?

        Unforeseen circumstances, reasonableness and fairness

        The Interim Injunction Judge rules that the coronavirus crisis may be an unforeseen circumstance, but it is not of such a nature that, according to standards of reasonableness and fairness, the plaintiff cannot expect the break fee obligation to remain unchanged. The purpose of the break fee is to encourage parties to enter into the transaction and attribute / share risks between them. As such the fee limits the exposure of the parties. Payment of the fee is a quick way out of the obligation to pay the purchase price of EUR 169 million and the risks of keeping the target company financially afloat. If financially the coronavirus crisis turns out less disastrous than expected, the fee of EUR 30 million may seem high, but that is what the parties already considered reasonable when they waived their right to invoke the unreasonableness of the fee. The claim for payment of the EUR 30 million break fee is therefore upheld by the Interim Injunction Judge.

        Applicable law and the actual practice of it by the courts

        The relevant three articles are in this case articles 6:94, 6:248 and 6:258 of the Dutch Civil Code. They relate to the mitigation of contractual penalties, unforeseen circumstances and amendment of the agreement under the tenets of reasonableness and fairness. Under Dutch law the courts must with all three exercise caution. Contracts must generally be enforced as agreed. The parties’ autonomy is deemed paramount and the courts’ attitude is deferential. All three articles use language stating, essentially, that interference by the courts in the contract’s operation is allowed only to avoid an “unacceptable” impact, as assessed under standards of reasonableness and fairness.

        There is at this moment of course no well- established case law on COVID-19. However, commentators have provided guidance that is very helpful to think through the issues. Recently a “share the pain” approach has been advocated by a renowned law Professor, Tjittes, who focuses on preserving the parties’ contractual equilibrium in the current circumstances. This is, in the Court’s analysis, the right way to look at the agreement here. There is no evidence in the record suggesting that the parties contemplated or discussed the full and exceptional impact of the COVID-19 crisis. The crisis may or may not be unprovided for.  However, the court rules in the current case there is no need to rule on this issue. Even if the crisis is unprovided for, there is no support in the record for the proposition that the crisis makes it unacceptable for the claimant to demand strict performance by the defendant. The reasons are straightforward.

        The break fee allocates risk and expresses commitment and caps exposure. The harm to the business may be substantial and structural, or it may be short-term and minimal. Either way, the best “share the pain” solution, to preserve the contractual equilibrium in the agreement, is for the defendant to pay the fee as written in the letter of intent. This allocates a defined risk to one party, and actual or potential risks to the other party. Reducing the break fee in any business downturn, the fee’s express purpose – comfort and confidence to get the deal done – would not be accomplished and be derived in precisely the circumstances in which it should be robust. As a result, the Court therefore orders to pay the full EUR 30 million fee. So the break fee stipulation works under the circumstances without mitigation because of the Corona outbreak.

        The Netherlands Commercial Court, continued

        As already indicated above, the case is interesting because the verdict has been rendered by a Dutch state court in English and the proceedings where also in English. Not because of a special privilege granted in a specific case but based on an agreement between parties with a proper choice of forum clause for this court. In addition to the benefit to of having an English forum without mandatorily relying on either arbitration or choosing an anglophone court, it also has the benefit of it being a state court with the application of the regular Dutch civil procedure law, which is well known by it’s practitioners and reduces the risk of surprises of a procedural nature.  As it is as such also a “normal” state court, there is the right to appeal and particularly effective under Dutch law access to expedited proceeding as was also the case in the example referred to above. This means a regular procedure with full application of all evidentiary rules may still follow, overturning or confirming this preliminary verdict in summary proceedings.

        Novel technology in proceedings

        Another first or at least a novel application is that all submissions were made in eNCC, a document upload procedure for the NCC. Where the introduction of electronic communication and litigation in the Dutch court system has failed spectacularly, the innovations are now all following in quick order and quite effective. As a consequence of the Coronavirus outbreak several steps have been quickly tried in practice and thereafter formally set up. At present this – finally – includes a secure email-correspondence system between attorneys and the courts.

        And, also by special order of the Court in this present case, given the current COVID-19 restrictions the matter was dealt with at a public videoconference hearing on 22 April 2020 and the case was set for judgment on 29 April 2020 and published on 30 April 2020.

        Even though it is a novel application, it is highly likely that similar arrangements will continue even after expiry of current emergency measures. In several Dutch courts videoconference hearings are applied on a voluntary basis and is expected that the arrangements will be formalized.

        Eligibility of cases for the Netherlands Commercial Court

        Of more general interest are the requirements for matters that may be submitted to NCC:

        • the Amsterdam District Court or Amsterdam Court of Appeal has jurisdiction
        • the parties have expressly agreed in writing that proceedings will be in English before the NCC (the ‘NCC agreement’)
        • the action is a civil or commercial matter within the parties’ autonomy
        • the matter concerns an international dispute.

        The NCC agreement can be recorded in a clause, either before or after the dispute arises. The Court even recommends specific wording:

        “All disputes arising out of or in connection with this agreement will be resolved by the Amsterdam District Court following proceedings in English before the Chamber for International Commercial Matters (“Netherlands Commercial Court” or “NCC District Court”), to the exclusion of the jurisdiction of any other courts. An action for interim measures, including protective measures, available under Dutch law may be brought in the NCC’s Court in Summary Proceedings (CSP) in proceedings in English. Any appeals against NCC or CSP judgments will be submitted to the Amsterdam Court of Appeal’s Chamber for International Commercial Matters (“Netherlands Commercial Court of Appeal” or “NCCA”).”

        The phrase “to the exclusion of the jurisdiction of any other courts” is included in light of the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements. It is not mandatory to include it of course and parties may decide not to exclude the jurisdiction of other courts or make other arrangements they consider appropriate. The only requirement being that such arrangements comply with the rules of jurisdiction and contract. Please note that choice of court agreements are exclusive unless the parties have “expressly provided” or “agreed” otherwise (as per the Hague Convention and Recast Brussels I Regulation).

        Parties in a pending case before another Dutch court or chamber may request that their case be referred to NCC District Court or NCC Court of Appeal. One of the requirements is to agree on a clause that takes the case to the NCC and makes English the language of the proceedings. The NCC recommends using this language:

        We hereby agree that all disputes in connection with the case [name parties], which is currently pending at the *** District Court (case number ***), will be resolved by the Amsterdam District Court following proceedings in English before the Chamber for International Commercial Matters (“Netherlands Commercial Court” or ”NCC District Court). Any action for interim measures, including protective measures, available under Dutch law will be brought in the NCC’s Court in Summary Proceedings (CSP) in proceedings in English. Any appeals against NCC or CSP judgments will be submitted to the Amsterdam Court of Appeal’s Chamber for International Commercial Matters (“Netherlands Commercial Court of Appeal” or “NCC Court of Appeal”).

        To request a referral, a motion must be made before the other chamber or court where the action is pending, stating the request and contesting jurisdiction (if the case is not in Amsterdam) on the basis of a choice-of-court agreement (see before).

        Additional arrangements in the proceedings before the Netherlands Commercial Court

        Before or during the proceedings, parties can also agree special arrangements in a customized NCC clause or in another appropriate manner. Such arrangements may include matters such as the following:

        • the law applicable to the substantive dispute
        • the appointment of a court reporter for preparing records of hearings and the costs of preparing those records
        • an agreement on evidence that departs from the general rules
        • the disclosure of confidential documents
        • the submission of a written witness statement prior to the witness examination
        • the manner of taking witness testimony
        • the costs of the proceedings.

        Visiting lawyers and typical course of the procedure

        All acts of process are in principle carried out by a member of the Dutch Bar. Member of the Bar in an EU or EEA Member State or Switzerland may work in accordance with Article 16e of the Advocates Act (in conjunction with a member of the Dutch Bar). Other visiting lawyers may be allowed to speak at any hearing.

        The proceedings will typically follow the below steps:

        • Submitting the initiating document by the plaintiff (summons or request as per Dutch law)
        • Assigned to three judges and a senior law clerk.
        • The defendant submits its defence statement.
        • Case management conference or motion hearing (e.g. also in respect of preliminary issues such as competence, applicable law etc.) where parties may present their arguments.
        • Judgment on motions: the court rules on the motions. Testimony, expert appointment, either at this stage or earlier or later.
        • The court may allow the parties to submit further written statements.
        • Hearing: the court interviews the parties and allows them to present their arguments. The court may enquire whether the dispute could be resolved amicably and, where appropriate, assist the parties in a settlement process. If appropriate, the court may discuss with the parties whether it would be advisable to submit part or all of the dispute to a mediator. At the end of the hearing, the court will discuss with the parties what the next steps should be.
        • Verdict: this may be a final judgment on the claims or an interim judgment ordering one or more parties to produce evidence, allowing the parties to submit written submissions on certain aspects of the case, appointing one or more experts or taking other steps.

        Continuous updates, online resources Netherlands Commercial Court

        As a final note the English language website of the Netherlands Commercial Court provides ample information on procedure and practical issues and is updated with a high frequence. Under current circumstance even at a higher pace. In particular for practitioners it’s recommended to regularly consult the website. https://www.rechtspraak.nl/English/NCC/Pages/default.aspx

        Le operazioni di acquisizione (M&A) in Italia, nella maggior parte dei casi, vengono realizzate attraverso acquisto di partecipazioni (‘share deal’) o di azienda o ramo d’azienda (‘asset deal’). Per ragioni principalmente fiscali sono più frequenti gli share deal rispetto agli asset deal, nonostante l’asset deal consenta una migliore limitazione dei rischi per l’acquirente. Vedremo le principali differenze tra share deal e asset deal in termini di rischi e di rapporti tra venditore e acquirente.

        Preferenza per operazioni di M&A mediante acquisto di partecipazioni (‘share deal’) rispetto ad acquisto di azienda o ramo d’azienda (‘asset deal’) nel mercato italiano

        In Italia, le operazione di acquisizione (M&A) vengono realizzate, nella maggior parte dei casi, attraverso acquisto di partecipazioni (‘share deal’) o di azienda o ramo d’azienda (‘asset deal’). Altre modalità, come la fusione, sono meno frequenti.

        Con l’acquisto di quote o azioni della società acquisita (‘share deal’) l’acquirente acquisisce, indirettamente, l’intero patrimonio aziendale (attività, passività, rapporti) e quindi si fa carico di tutti i rischi relativi alla precedente gestione della società.

        Con l’acquisto dell’azienda o di un ramo d’azienda (‘asset deal’) l’acquirente acquisisce un insieme di beni e rapporti organizzati per l’esercizio dell’impresa (immobili, impianti, dipendenti, contratti, crediti, debiti, ecc.). Il vantaggio dell’asset deal risiede nella possibilità per le parti di definire il perimetro del trasferimento e, quindi, per l’acquirente, di limitare i rischi legali dell’operazione.

        Nonostante questo vantaggio, la maggior parte delle operazioni di acquisizione in Italia avviene attraverso acquisto di partecipazioni. Nel 2018 gli acquisti di partecipazioni (azioni o quote) sono state circa 78.400, mentre le cessioni di azienda sono state circa 35.900 (fonte: www.notariato.it/it/news/dati-statistici-notarili-anno-2018). E va osservato che il dato delle cessioni d’azienda comprende anche le aziende di piccole o piccolissime dimensioni esercitate da imprenditori individuali, per le quali l’alternativa dello share deal (pur praticabile, attraverso il conferimento dell’azienda in una newco e la cessione delle partecipazioni nella newco) non è percorribile in concreto per ragioni di costo.

        Costi fiscali delle operazioni di acquisizione (M&A) in Italia

        La principale ragione della preferenza per l’acquisto di partecipazione (‘share deal’) rispetto all’acquisto di azienda (‘asset deal’) risiede nei costi fiscali dell’operazione. Vediamo quali sono, in linea generale.

        Nell’acquisto di partecipazioni, le imposte dirette a carico del venditore vengono calcolate sulla plusvalenza, secondo le seguenti percentuali:

        • se il venditore è una società di capitali (s.p.a.; s.r.l.; s.a.p.a.) l’aliquota è del 24% della plusvalenza. Ma, a determinate condizioni, si applica il regime della c.d. PEX (participation exemption) con applicazione dell’aliquota del 24% solo sul 5% della plusvalenza.
        • Se il venditore è una persona fisica l’aliquota sulla plusvalenza è del 26%.
        • Se il venditore è una società di persone (s.s.; s.n.c..; s.a.s.) la plusvalenza è integralmente imponibile, tuttavia al ricorrere di determinate condizioni, l’imponibilità è limitata al 60% dell’ammontare della plusvalenza. In entrambi i casi l’aliquota applicabile è quella marginale riferita a ciascun socio a cui il reddito viene imputato per trasparenza.

        Nell’acquisto di partecipazioni si applica l’imposta di registro, normalmente a carico dell’acquirente, di euro 200.

        Anche nell’acquisto di azienda, le imposte dirette a carico del venditore vengono calcolate sulla plusvalenza. Se il venditore è una società di capitali, l’aliquota è del 24% della plusvalenza. Se il venditore è una società di persone (con soci persone fisiche) o un imprenditore individuale, le aliquote dipendono dal reddito del venditore.

        Nell’acquisto di azienda si applicano le imposte indirette, normalmente a carico dell’acquirente, calcolate sulla parte del prezzo attribuibile ai singoli beni trasferiti. Il prezzo è il risultato delle attività trasferite detratte le passività trasferite. Le percentuali sono diverse a seconda del tipo di beni. In generale:

        • ai beni mobili si applica una imposta di registro del 3%;
        • all’avviamento si applica una imposta di registro del 3%;
        • ai fabbricati si applica una imposta di registro del 9% (e imposte ipotecarie e catastali in misura fissa di euro 50 ciascuna);
        • ai terreni si applica una imposta di registro tra il 9 e il 12% (a seconda dell’acquirente) e imposte ipotecarie e catastali in misura fissa di euro 50 ciascuna.

        Nel caso in cui l’azienda sia composta da beni soggetti ad aliquote diverse e le parti abbiano pattuito un corrispettivo unico, senza distinzione in merito al valore attribuibile ai singoli beni, l’imposta deve calcolarsi applicando all’unico corrispettivo pattuito l’aliquota più elevata.

        Va sottolineato che l’Agenzia delle Entrate può sottoporre ad accertamento il valore attribuito dalle parti ai beni immobili e all’avviamento, con conseguente rischio di applicazione di maggiori imposte.

        Share deal e asset deal: rischi e responsabilità verso i terzi

        Nell’acquisto di quote o azioni (‘share deal’) l’acquirente si fa carico, indirettamente, di tutti i rischi relativi alla precedente gestione della società.

        Nell’acquisto dell’azienda o di un ramo d’azienda (‘asset deal’), invece, le parti possono decidere il perimetro del trasferimento (quali beni e rapporti) così stabilendo, nei rapporti tra loro, i rischi che l’acquirente assume.

        Vi sono però alcune norme, che le parti non possono derogare, relative ai rapporti con i terzi, che influiscono significativamente sui rischi per il venditore e l’acquirente e quindi sulla negoziazione dell’accordo tra le parti. Le principali sono le seguenti.

        • Lavoratori dipendenti: il rapporto di lavoro continua con l’acquirente dell’azienda. Il venditore e l’acquirente sono obbligati in solido per tutti i crediti del lavoratore al momento del trasferimento (art. 2112 c.c.).
        • Debiti: il venditore è obbligato al pagamento di tutti i debiti sino alla data del trasferimento. L’acquirente è obbligato per i debiti che risultano dai libri contabili (art. 2560 c.c.).
        • Debiti e responsabilità fiscali: il venditore è obbligato al pagamento di debiti, imposte e sanzioni fiscali relative al periodo sino alla data del trasferimento.
          L’acquirente, in aggiunta all’obbligo relativo ai debiti fiscali che risultano dai libri contabili (art. 2560 c.c.), è responsabile per le imposte e sanzioni, anche se non risultano dai libri contabili, con i seguenti limiti (art. 14 D.lgs. 472/1997):
        • beneficio della preventiva escussione del venditore;
        • fino al valore dell’azienda o del ramo d’azienda acquistato;
        • per le imposte e sanzioni non ancora contestate, la responsabilità riguarda solo quelle relative all’anno della vendita dell’azienda e ai due precedenti; per le imposte e sanzioni relative al periodo anteriore ai due anni precedenti la vendita dell’azienda, la responsabilità riguarda solo quelle contestate entro tale periodo;
        • nei limiti del debito risultante alla data di trasferimento dagli atti degli uffici dell’amministrazione finanziaria. L’Agenzia delle Entrate è tenuta a rilasciare un certificato sull’esistenza di contestazioni in corso e sui debiti. Il certificato negativo, o non rilasciato entro 40 giorni dalla richiesta, libera l’acquirente da responsabilità.
        • Contratti: le parti possono scegliere quali contratti trasferire. Rispetto ai contratti trasferiti, l’acquirente subentra, anche senza il consenso del terzo contraente, nei contratti per l’esercizio dell’azienda che non hanno carattere personale (sono a carattere personale quelli che prevedono da parte del venditore una prestazione oggettivamente infungibile o soggettivamente infungibile). Inoltre il terzo contraente può recedere dal contratto entro tre mesi, se sussiste una giusta causa (ad esempio se l’acquirente non garantisce, per la propria situazione patrimoniale o per capacità tecniche, di poter adempiere al contratto) (art. 2558 c.c.).

        Alcuni strumenti per affrontare i rischi

        Per affrontare i rischi derivanti dalle responsabilità verso i terzi e i rischi generali connessi all’acquisizione, vi sono diversi strumenti negoziali e contrattuali che possono essere utilizzati. Vediamone alcuni.

        Nelle operazioni di acquisto dell’azienda o di rami d’azienda (‘asset deal’):

        • Lavoratori dipendenti: è possibile concordare con il lavoratore modifiche alle condizioni contrattuali e rinunce alla responsabilità solidale dell’acquirente e del venditore (ex art. 2112 c.c.). L’accordo con i lavoratore per essere valido deve essere concluso in sede ‘protetta’ (ad esempio: con l’assistenza delle organizzazioni sindacali).
        • Debiti:
        • trasferire all’acquirente i debiti riducendo il prezzo in misura corrispondente; la riduzione del prezzo comporta, inoltre, una minor costo fiscale dell’operazione. In caso di trasferimento dei debiti, per tutelare il venditore si può ottenere dal creditore una dichiarazione di liberazione del venditore dalla responsabilità ex art. 2560 c.c.; oppure si può prevedere che il pagamento del debito da parte dell’acquirente avvenga contestualmente al trasferimento dell’azienda (‘closing’).
        • Per i debiti non trasferiti all’acquirente, ottenere dal creditore una dichiarazione di liberazione dell’acquirente dalla responsabilità ex art. 2560 c.c.
        • Per i debiti per i quali non sia possibile ottenere la dichiarazione di liberazione da parte del creditore, pattuire forme di garanzia a favore del venditore (per i debiti trasferiti) o a favore dell’acquirente (per i debiti non trasferiti), quali ad esempio la dilazione del pagamento (a favore dell’acquirente) di parte del prezzo, il deposito fiduciario (‘escrow’) di parte del prezzo, fideiussioni bancarie o da parte dei soci.
        • Debiti e responsabilità fiscali:
        • ottenere dall’Agenzia delle Entrate il certificato ex art. 14 D.lgs. 472/1997 sui debiti e le contestazioni in corso;
        • trasferire all’acquirente i debiti riducendo il prezzo in misura corrispondente;
        • pattuire le forme di garanzia a favore del venditore (per i debiti trasferiti) e a favore dell’acquirente (per i debiti non trasferiti o per le contestazioni che non sono ancora debiti), quali ad esempio quelle sopra esposte per i debiti in generale.
        • Contratti: per quelli che vengono trasferiti:
        • verificare che le prestazioni a carico del venditore sino alla data del trasferimento siano state regolarmente adempiute, per evitare il rischio di contestazioni del terzo contraente che possono bloccare l’esecuzione del contratto;
        • almeno per i contratti più importanti (e salvo ragioni di riservatezza), cercare di ottenere conferma dal terzo contraente del benestare al trasferimento del contratto.

        Nelle operazioni di acquisto di partecipazioni (‘share deal’), in cui l’acquirente si fa carico, indirettamente, di tutti i rischi relativi alla precedente gestione della società, alcuni strumenti sono:

        • Due diligence. Svolgere una approfondita due diligence legale, fiscale e contabile sulla società, per valutare preventivamente i rischi e gestirli nella trattativa e nei contratti.
        • Dichiarazioni e garanzie (‘R&W’) e indennizzo. Prevedere nel contratto di acquisizione (‘share purchase agreement’) un set dettagliato di dichiarazioni e garanzie – e obblighi di indennizzo in caso di non conformità – a carico del venditore relativamente alla situazione della società (‘business warranties’: bilancio; situazione patrimoniale di riferimento; contratti; contenzioso; rispetto della normativa ambientale; autorizzazioni per lo svolgimento dell’attività; debiti; crediti ecc.). La trattativa sulle dichiarazioni e garanzie normalmente recepisce, gestendoli, gli esiti della due diligence (ad esempio: viene escluso dalle dichiarazioni e garanzie e dall’indennizzo un contenzioso emerso in due diligence, del quale le parti tengono conto nella definizione del prezzo). La pattuizione di dichiarazioni e garanzie sulla situazione della società (‘business warranties’) e dell’obbligo di indennizzo sono necessari negli share deal in Italia, in quanto in mancanza di tali clausole l’acquirente non può ottenere dal venditore (salvo situazioni estreme e molto rare) un risarcimento o indennizzo in caso la situazione della società sia diversa da quella considerata al momento dell’acquisto (così ad esempio: Cass. Civ. 16963/2014).
        • Garanzie per l’acquirente. Strumenti per garantire all’acquirente l’effettiva possibilità di ottenere l’indennizzo (o parte dell’indennizzo) in caso di non conformità delle dichiarazioni e garanzie. Tra queste: (a) la dilazione del pagamento di parte del prezzo; (b) il versamento di parte del prezzo in un deposito fiduciario (‘escrow’) per la durata delle dichiarazioni e garanzie e, in caso di contestazioni, fino a che la contestazione non è definita; (c) fideiussione bancaria;; (d) polizza W&I, contratto di assicurazione che copre il rischio dell’acquirente in caso di violazioni di dichiarazioni e garanzie, sino ad un importo massimo (ed esclusi alcuni rischi).

        Altri fattori che incidono sulla scelta tra share deal e asset deal

        Naturalmente la scelta di realizzare un’operazione di acquisizione in Italia mediante share deal o asset deal, dipende anche da altri fattori oltre a quello dei costi fiscali dell’operazione. Eccone alcuni.

        • Acquisto di parte del business. Si sceglie l’asset deal, quando l’operazione non riguarda l’acquisto dell’intera azienda del venditore ma solo una sua parte (un ramo d’azienda).
        • Situazione della società problematica. Si sceglie l’asset deal quando la situazione della società target è così problematica che l’acquirente non è disponibile ad assumere tutti i rischi derivanti dalla precedente gestione, ma solo parte di essi.
        • Mantenimento di un ruolo da parte del venditore. Si sceglie lo share deal quando si vuole conservare al venditore un ruolo nella società acquisita. In questo caso, oltre ad un ruolo nel management, è frequente il mantenimento da parte del venditore di una partecipazione di minoranza, con clausole di exit (diritti di put e call) decorso un certo periodo di tempo. Clausole che, spesso, legano il prezzo ai risultati futuri e, quindi, nell’interesse dell’acquirente incentivano il venditore nel ruolo manageriale e, nell’interesse del venditore, valorizzano prospettive reddituali non concretizzate al momento dell’acquisto.

        Dal 1° agosto 2021 non sarà più necessario, per la costituzione di una SRL – società a responsabilità limitata, recarsi dal notaio: la procedura potrà anche essere realizzata completamente on line, salvo casi eccezionali. Ciò è previsto dalla Direttiva U.E. 2019/1151, che impone agli stati di adeguarsi entro due anni. Vediamo cosa prevede la Direttiva.

        Come si costituisce una S.r.l. in Italia oggi

        In Italia, per costituire una società e, in particolare, una società a responsabilità limitata, è sempre necessario rivolgersi ad un notaio.

        Ciò vale anche per la c.d. «SRL semplificata», introdotta nel 2012 dal Decreto Legge «Liberalizzazioni». In questo caso, infatti, la legge prevede che, a fronte dell’utilizzo di uno statuto standard non modificabile, non vi siano oneri notarili da sostenere. Tuttavia, resta sempre necessario comparire avanti ad un notaio.

        Cosa cambierà da agosto 2021 con il recepimento della Direttiva U.E. 2019/1151

        Le cose dovranno cambiare con l’entrata in vigore della Direttiva U.E. 2019/1151, che modifica la Direttiva U.E. 2017/1132 in tema di uso di strumenti e processi digitali nel diritto societario.

        Entro il 1° agosto 2021, gli Stati membri dovranno aggiornare le procedure per la costituzione di una società in modo da garantire un doppio binario.

        Dovrà, cioè, essere possibile costituire una società sia con il metodo tradizionale, ossia rivolgendosi ad un notaio, oppure con procedure esclusivamente on line.

        Due eccezioni

        • l’art. 13-ter, par. 4, dispone che «ove sia giustificato da motivi di interesse pubblico per impedire l’usurpazione o l’alterazione di identità, gli Stati membri possono adottare misure che potrebbero richiedere la presenza fisica ai fini della verifica dell’identità del richiedente dinanzi a un’autorità o a qualsiasi persona od organismo incaricati… Gli Stati membri provvedono affinché la presenza fisica del richiedente possa essere richiesta solo se vi sono motivi di sospettare una falsificazione dell’identità e garantiscono che qualsiasi altra fase della procedura possa essere completata online»;
        • l’art. 13-octies, co. 8, dispone che «ove giustificato da motivi di interesse pubblici a garantire il rispetto delle norme sulla capacità giuridica e sull’autorità dei richiedenti di rappresentare una società, qualsiasi autorità o qualsiasi persona od organismo incaricato… può chiedere la presenza fisica del richiedente… Gli Stati membri garantiscono che tutte le altre fasi della procedura possano essere comunque completate on line».

        Gli Stati membri dovranno mettere a disposizione i modelli necessari per la costituzione delle società a responsabilità limitata «in almeno una lingua ufficiale dell’Unione ampiamente compresa dal maggior numero possibile di utenti transfrontalieri».

        Rischi

        La direttiva rappresenta, indubbiamente, un interessante tentativo di semplificazione, il cui successo dipenderà, tuttavia, da come verrà recepita dai singoli Stati membri.

        I rischi principali sono almeno due:

        1. il primo, facilmente intuibile, è che gli Stati membri rendano troppo oneroso l’accertamento dell’identità od il potere rappresentativo dei richiedenti, rendendo più semplice, in definitiva, il tradizionale ricorso ad un notaio;
        2. il secondo è che le procedure on line siano poco chiare o comprensibili, specie agli utenti stranieri. In tal senso, non appare sufficiente che i modelli siano resi disponibili, ma sarà necessario che le procedure online siano orientate alla maggiore semplificazione possibile e che i modelli siano tutti disponibili almeno in lingua inglese.

        Infine, è evidente che la digitalizzazione del procedimento di costituzione di una società non elimina l’opportunità di rivolgersi ad un professionista con il compito di consigliare il cliente nelle scelte che sarà necessario fare, ad esempio in materia di corporate governance.

        A legal due diligence of a Brazilian target company should analyze the existence and the content of Agency Agreements, including values paid to the agent and the nature of such payments and the factual situation of the target’s agents, in order to evaluate potential contingencies.

        One usual suspect in legal due diligences of Brazilian target companies in M&A transactions that should not be overlooked is the existence of agency agreements, due to:

        • the obligation to indemnify the agent stipulated by law: at least 1/12th of all commissions paid throughout the entire term of the agency agreement; and
        • the risks for the agency being disregarded and considered as an employment relationship, subjecting the principal to compensate the agent as an employee with all rights, benefits, taxes and social contributions.

        This should be considered for evaluation of potential contingencies and the impacts on the valuation of the target.

        No doubt that agents can be an important component of the sales force of the business and can be strategic for the activity of the principal, in view of a certain independence and for not increasing the payroll of a company.

        On the other hand, under Brazilian laws, the protective nature of the agency demands the principal a considerable level of attention.

        Indemnification

        Brazilian Federal Law No. 4,886/65 as amended – the Brazilian Agency Law – determines that the agent is entitled to, at the termination of an agency agreement, receive an indemnification of 1/12th calculated over all the commissions paid throughout the duration of the entire period of the agency agreement.

        The Brazilian Agency Law stipulates that if the parties sign a new contract within 6 months after the expiration of the previous, the relation between agent and principal shall be deemed as the same relationship and thus, the duration to calculate the indemnification shall encompass the entire period (past and subsequent contract).

        Termination by the agent

        The Brazilian Agency Law also stipulates situations that agent could terminate the contract and still be entitled to receive the 1/12th indemnification:

        • reduction of the activities in disagreement with the contractual stipulation
        • breach of exclusivity (territory and/or products), if so stipulated in the agreement
        • determination of prices that makes the agency unfeasible and
        • default on payment of the commissions
        • force majeure

        Termination without cause

        Termination without cause can be done, upon payment to agent of the indemnification and with a previous notice of at least 30 days, in which situation the agent shall receive the payment of 1/3 of the remuneration received during the previous 90 days prior to the termination.

        Can principal avoid the indemnification?

        The only cases where the 1/12th indemnification would not be applicable are when the contract is terminated by principal with cause. The Brazilian Agency Law has limited situations for principal to terminate the contract with cause:

        • acts by agent causing disrepute of the principal
        • breach of obligations related to the agency activities
        • criminal conviction related to honor, reputation

        These situations shall be clearly demonstrated. Producing the sufficiently strong evidence of the facts to configure cause for termination may not be an easy task, considering some of the facts may be subject to construing and interpreting by the parties, witnesses and ultimately the judge.

        As a result, from past experiences, it is rare to see principals in conditions not to incur in the 1/12th indemnification.

        Potential risk: configuring employment relationship

        In addition to the indemnification, the activities developed by the agent could eventually be deemed as performed by a regular employee of the principal and, in this case, principal could be subject to compensate the agent as an employee.

        Agent vs. employee

        For the appreciation of the employment relationship, the individual acting as agent shall file a labor claim and demonstrate the existence of the employment relationship.

        The Labor Court judge will consider the factual situation, prevailing upon the written agreements or other formal documents. The judge may rely on e-mails, witnesses and other evidence.

        The elements of an employment relationship are:

        • Individual: in case the individual acts by himself to perform the services; Personal services: the services are in fact performed by the individual specifically to the Principal;;
        • Non-eventuality – exclusivity: the services are rendered in a regular basis;
        • Subordination: key factor – the individual has to follow strict instructions directed by principal, such as reporting to an employee of the principal, determined visits;
        • Rewarding – fixed remuneration: the individual is awarded regular amounts and expenses allowances

        In the event the individual can demonstrate the existence of the elements to configure an employment relationship, he/she could have an award to entitle him/her to have his remuneration considered as of a regular employee for the last 5 years.

        As a result, the individual would be awarded the payment of Christmas bonus (equivalent to 1 monthly remuneration per year), vacation allowance (1/3 of a monthly remuneration per year), unemployment guarantee fund (1 monthly remuneration per year) plus other benefits that he/she would be given as an employee of principal (based on the collective bargaining agreement between the employees’ and employers’ unions). The company would also be obliged to make the payment of the co-related social security contributions.

        Needless to say, the result could turn into a considerable potential contingency.

        The author of this article is Paulo Yamaguchi

        Uno dei momenti più delicati di qualsiasi operazione di M&A è sicuramente il momento in cui si affronta il tema delle «garanzie», in particolare con riferimento alla situazione economica, patrimoniale e finanziaria della società o dell’azienda (o di un ramo d’azienda), ovvero le c.d. «business warranties».

        Da un lato, infatti, il compratore vorrebbe «blindare» quanto più possibile il proprio investimento, riducendo al minimo il rischio di sorprese. Al contrario, il venditore vorrebbe contenere il più possibile le garanzie offerte, che spesso si traducono in un limite temporaneo al pieno godimento dei frutti della vendita, di cui magari necessita per effettuare un altro investimento.

        È bene precisare, innanzi tutto, che con il termine «garanzie» si fa normalmente riferimento, in modo atecnico, ad un articolato set di previsioni contrattuali contenenti:

        • le dichiarazioni del venditore circa lo stato di salute della società o dell’azienda (o del ramo d’azienda) ceduta;
        • gli obblighi d’indennizzo assunti dal venditore in caso di «violazione» (ossia non corrispondenza al vero) delle dichiarazioni rese;
        • gli strumenti previsti al fine di assicurare l’effettività degli obblighi d’indennizzo assunti.

        Vi sono diverse ragioni per cui tale set è necessario, ma la principale è che nei contratti di M&A non trovano applicazione le garanzie civilistiche sulle vendita se non limitatamente al bene venduto, pertanto, se il bene venduto sono le partecipazioni, le garanzie non coprono gli asset sottostanti della società, e, nei casi eccezionali in cui trovano applicazione, i termini brevi e le limitazioni stringenti rendono, comunque, opportuna l’assunzione di obbligazioni accessorie volte a garantire il buon esito economico dell’operazione.

        Ciò è confermato dalla pratica: nelle operazioni di M&A non vi è contratto che non includa il set delle garanzie.

        Le dichiarazioni, in particolare, recepiscono normalmente la due diligence svolta dal compratore, preceduta, a sua volta, da un non disclosure agreement (NDA), finalizzato a tutelare le informazioni messe a disposizione.

        Eventuali criticità che dovessero emergere dovranno essere adeguatamente riportate. Ovviamente, non è detto che un’eventuale criticità, laddove si concretizzi, debba necessariamente far scattare un obbligo d’indennizzo. Spetterà alle parti regolamentare tale aspetto, potendo anche prevedere che il relativo rischio resti a carico del compratore, magari a fronte di una riduzione del prezzo.

        In merito all’obbligo d’indennizzo dovranno poi essere attentamente negoziati alcuni aspetti. I principali sono sicuramente:

        • la durata (es. maggiore per le garanzie fiscali);
        • a chi spetta l’eventuale indennizzo (al compratore o alla società; all’uno o all’altra a seconda dei casi);
        • eventuali detrazioni e /o limitazioni (es. perdite fiscali);
        • l’importo massimo indennizzabile;
        • un’eventuale franchigia;
        • la procedura d’indennizzo (es. termini per la richiesta, procedura di composizione, situazioni particolari, etc.).

        Si tratta di aspetti importantissimi, che non devono essere sottovalutati. È chiaro, ad esempio, che non disciplinare adeguatamente la procedura d’indennizzo rischia di vanificare tutto il lavoro fatto prima.

        Infine, dovranno essere previsti strumenti idonei al fine di assicurare la tutela effettiva del compratore. Tra questi, quelli più tradizionali sono:

        • la fideiussione;
        • il contratto autonomo di garanzia;
        • il deposito fiduciario («escrow»);
        • la dilazione di pagamento;
        • il meccanismo di «earn out»;
        • il c.d. «price adjustment»;
        • la lettera di patronage;
        • il pegno e/o l’ipoteca.

        Si tratta di strumenti tutti più o meno largamente utilizzati nella pratica, che presentano ciascuno dei pro e dei contro.

        Qui, tuttavia, vogliamo occuparci di un nuovo strumento di natura assicurativa, a cui si sta cominciando a fare ricorso negli ultimi tempi: le c.d. «Polizze Warranty & Indemnity».

        Con una polizza W&I, in pratica, l’assicuratore, a fronte del pagamento di un premio, assume su di sé il rischio derivante dalla violazione delle dichiarazioni contenute in un contratto di M&A.

        Presupposto fondamentale, ovviamente, è che la violazione derivi da fatti antecedenti al closing e non noti in quel momento (e, quindi, non evidenziati dalla due diligence effettuata).

        La polizza può essere sottoscritta dal compratore (buyer side) o dal venditore (seller side). Di regola è preferita la prima soluzione. Tali polizze W&I presentano numerosi vantaggi:

        • si ottiene una garanzia a fronte di un venditore non sempre disponibile ad impegnarsi contrattualmente;
        • la polizza generalmente non prevede l’ipotesi di regresso nei confronti del venditore, salvo il caso di dolo, per cui il venditore è integralmente liberato;
        • è possibile ottenere un massimale maggiore di quello previsto nel contratto di compravendita;
        • analogamente, la copertura può essere prevista per un periodo più lungo;
        • si facilitano le relazioni con il venditore, specie nel caso ci siano più venditori ed alcuni di essi restino nella società, magari occupando un posto nel Consiglio d’Amministrazione;
        • si facilita notevolmente il processo d’indennizzo, specie nel caso in cui ci siano più venditori, magari persone fisiche;
        • il compratore riesce ad avere una maggiore certezza di solvibilità.

        Il costo della polizza potrebbe essere condiviso tra le parti, eventualmente con uno sconto del prezzo, che il venditore potrebbe essere disposto a concedere tenuto conto del fatto che non dovrà rilasciare altre garanzie e potrà godere immediatamente dei frutti della vendita.

        Il premio è normalmente compreso tra l’1% ed il 2% del limite d’indennizzo previsto (con un premio minimo).

        Attualmente, i limiti principali di questo strumento paiono essere, oltre al prezzo, che rende lo strumento adatto principalmente ad operazioni di importo non piccolo, la franchigia standard normalmente prevista, pari all’1% dell’Enterprise Value del Target, riducibile allo 0,5% a fronte di un innalzamento del premio. Da tenere presente inoltre che la polizza W&I implica la revisione della due diligence da parte della compagnia, che può tradursi in un intervento attivo nella negoziazione delle garanzie.

        A parte ciò, lo strumento è da considerare attentamente: in presenza di situazioni particolarmente complesse, potrebbe rappresentare la giusta soluzione per sbloccare situazioni di stallo negoziale e rendere più agevoli negoziazioni tra investitori professionali e PMI.

        The procedure to incorporate a foreign owned company in Spain is, in principle, easy and straight forward, however it is necessary to take into account certain new requirements derived from the tax and the anti-money laundering regulations, which could cause long delays in the incorporation process, even to EU and US companies, if they are not well advised and managed from the beginning of the procedure.

        The first step consist in collecting information about the foreign shareholder, in order to be able to prove its legal existence and activities: the foreign shareholder(s) will have to grant before a Notary Public in its country of residence a power of attorney authorising somebody in Spain to obtain its tax identification number (“NIE”), and also represent it before the Spanish notary when signing the deed of incorporation. In case the foreign shareholder is an individual person, the NIE should be applied for before the Spanish police or the Spanish Consulate at the country where the investor lives.

        If the shareholder is a corporation, apart from the Power of Attorney, it will have to obtain a certificate from its Companies’ Registry or Chamber of Commerce, stating its legal existence and main characteristics. This document is called “good standing certificate” (in the UK and US), “K-bis” (in France), “KvK” (in the Netherlands) or “visura” (in Italy). These two documents, the Power of Attorney mentioned in the above paragraph and the certificate from the Companies’ Registry, will have to be Apostilled or legalized by the correspondent Ministry, and Sworn translated into Spanish. Please note that we use to draft bilingual powers of attorney in order to avoid its sworn translation.

        The foreign shareholder will have to prove that its income is obtained from legal activities in order to be able to open a bank account in the name of the new company. The main document to prove this could be the Corporate or the Personal Income Tax return filed in its country of residence, but there could be other means, especially in case of individual persons.

        In case of a corporate shareholder, it will be necessary as well to declare, in principle through a public deed granted in Spain, who are the individual persons who, directly or through other companies, will hold more than a 25% interest in the new company to be incorporated. In case nobody holds more than a 25% (i.e. because there are 5 individual shareholders, holding each of them a 20%), it is declared that the effective control of the new company corresponds to its director.

        At this stage, it is also necessary to mention that the person(s) who will be the director(s) of the new company, in case they are foreigners, will also need to obtain their personal “NIE”. The NIE should be applied for before the Spanish police (this could be done by a proxy duly authorised though a Power of Attorney granted by the foreign director) or before the Spanish Consulate nearest to the city where the investor lives. In order to be a director of a Spanish company it is not necessary to be a shareholder, nor to have residence and work permit in Spain (provided the foreign director does not live in Spain).

        Meanwhile the necessary documents (Powers of Attorney, Companies’ Registry certificate, etc.) are being prepared by the foreign shareholder, the lawyer in Spain will apply for the new company’s name. It is advisable to point out that generic or usual names are not available quite often, therefore it is necessary to think in original names. Three different names could be applied for simultaneously.

        The drafting of the company’s Articles of Association or By Laws could be very quick, except if the company is going to have several shareholders and they wish specific clauses. In this case, it is also advisable to draft a Shareholders Agreement. The Shareholders’ Agreement could just contain some basic rules on dedication, compensation, non-competition, etc. and some more sophisticated rules on the sale of shares (tag along and drag along rights). As regards the By-Laws, they should mention the company’s name, its activity or activities, address in Spain –which cannot be just a P.O. Box-, share capital, number of shares and its face value, and starting date for the fiscal year, among other standard clauses.

        The management of the company could be organized through a sole director, two directors who could act jointly or separately, and in case there are more than three directors, they should organize themselves through a Board of Directors, being usual in this case to appoint a C.E.O. In order to be a director it is not necessary to be a shareholder. Under Spanish laws, the director(s) could be held liable for some company’s debts under certain circumstances which are legally defined. For this reason, it is necessary that the directors formally accept their appointment (personally appearing before the Notary or through a Power of Attorney).

        Before the incorporation, it will be necessary that either the new company’s director (the person to be appointed) or the representative of the corporate shareholder appears personally before the bank where the company will have its first bank account and signs the correspondent documents (KYC regulation). Once the bank account is opened, the shareholder will have to send a bank transfer for the new company’s share capital. In Spain, the minimum share capital for a limited company (S.L.) is Euros 3.000, while for a “Sociedad Anónima” (S.A.) it is Euros 60.000, but only 25% should be paid off at the incorporation moment. It is interesting to note that contributions to the share capital could be made in cash – which is the most common operation, especially at the incorporation – or in kind, with any type of assets: real estate, machinery, goods, trademarks, etc. The money for the share capital should be sent to the new company’s bank account from an account owned by the shareholder (or from each account owned by each shareholder, should they be several ones), not by any other different person. Once the Spanish bank receives the transfer, it will issue a certificate, which is necessary in order to incorporate the company.

        Once all the documents are ready, it is possible within very few days (almost immediately) to make the appointment with the Notary and sign the public deed of incorporation. This can be done at any notary in Spain, not being necessary that the notary practises at the same city where the company will have its corporate address. In order to summarize, the list of the necessary documents is:

        • Power(s) of Attorney granted by the foreign shareholder(s), apostilled and sworn translated.
        • Certificate regarding the legal existence of the foreign shareholder (only if it is a corporation), apostilled and sworn translated.
        • Statement on who are the last individual shareholders holding more than 25% interest in the new company, directly or indirectly (only in case of corporate shareholders).
        • NIE of the foreign shareholder(s).
        • NIE of the new company’s director(s), should they be a foreigners.
        • Certificate for the new company’s name.
        • Articles of Association.
        • Bank certificate regarding the contribution to the new company’s share capital.

        The deed of incorporation is signed by the proxy (or the individual shareholder(s), should they prefer to personally appear before the notary) before the chosen public notary, being also necessary to sign an official form to report the foreign investment to a public registry depending on the Spanish Ministry of Finance.

        Once the deed of incorporation is signed, the next steps consist in applying before the tax authorities to obtain the new company’s tax number (NIF / CIF) and filing the deed of incorporation before the Companies’ Registry. Some banks do allow new companies to operate once they have the NIF (which could be 2-3 days after the incorporation), while others request to wait until the deed of incorporation is filed at the Companies’ Registry (2-3 weeks).

        An estimation of the necessary time to complete all the procedure is 30-45 days, but of course the main delay is related to speed of the foreign investor in obtaining the necessary documents.

        Please note that if you wish to incorporate a foreign owned company in Spain it is always necessary to seek specific professional advice, as each case is different and regulations and the application of such regulations vary from time to time. The above article just explains the main steps and requirements for the incorporation of a company.

        In all M&A operations one of the issues that deserves special attention as regards its analysis, ascertainment and negotiation is the tax liabilities. Even though the parties could agree on the amount of such contingencies, to negotiate the possible guarantees that the seller should grant in order to protect the buyer from a possible claim by the tax authorities, the term during which the guarantees should be in force, and to agree on the communication mechanisms between the parties (buyer and seller) and the legal defense strategies if such claim from the tax authorities arises, requires substantial negotiation efforts.

        When the acquisition operation is formalized not through the purchase of shares, but through the purchase of the assets that form a business unit, the Spanish General Tax Law (“Ley General Tributaria” or “LGT”) provides a mechanism which implies an exception to the general principle provided by article 42 of the same law. Article 42 of LGT establishes the joint liability of the purchaser of a business unit for the tax liabilities of the selling company (“tax liability derived from company’s succession”). That is, in principle, according to article 42 of the LGT “the persons or entities that continue by any mean in the ownership or exercise of economic activities (the buyers) will be jointly liable with the previous owner for the tax liabilities derived from the exercise of such economic activities incurred by such previous owner”.

        However, the joint tax liability of the buyer could be limited through the application before the tax authorities of the tax certificate regulated by article 175.2 of the LGT. This certificate should be applied for by the prospective buyer, with the authorization of the present owner (the seller), and, once issued, the tax liability of the buyer becomes limited to the debts, penalties and liabilities mentioned in the certificate. If the certificate is issued without mentioning any amount, or if the tax authorities do not issue it within a three months term from the application’s date, the applicant (the buyer) will be released from any tax liability derived from company’s succession.

        The tax certificate for succession purposes includes the main taxes, as Value Added Tax and Corporate Income Tax, and can include as well debts derived from the withholding taxes on employees’ payroll, which in case of companies with a big number of employees could be of an outstanding amount. However, the buyer’s joint liability for salaries, related payroll amounts and social security contributions cannot be limited by such certificate, and such liability will always be joint with the business unit seller’s liability.

        The application for the tax certificate should be filed before the acquisition of the business unit is completed, even if the issuance of the certificate takes place later tan the closing date (but of course, it is wiser to not close the acquisition before having the certificate). The certificate’s validity lasts for one year, as regards periodical tax obligations (for example, Value Added Tax, Corporate Income Tax and withholding taxes on salaries) and for three months as regards non periodical tax obligations.

        It is very important to apply for the right tax certificate (“certificate for succession purposes according to article 175.2 of LGT”), and to not make a mistake and apply, for example, for the certificate regarding having fulfilled all tax obligations (“certificado de estar al corriente de las obligaciones fiscales”). Case law is plenty of judgments where a buyer applied for the wrong certificate, which showed no liabilities, and later on such buyer has been sentenced to pay the tax liabilities incurred by the previous owner of the business unit.

        When M&A transactions in Brazil are deemed not successful by the investor the main reason for underperformance is generally the existence of debts or fiscal/labor contingencies materialized higher than evaluated, or unexpected material adverse changes.

        The reasons for overlooking the debts and fiscal/labor contingencies is often the rush to close the investment. Either for avoiding a competitor to acquire the target, or to keep the leading position of the market share, for certain cases, the buyers may have not paid proper attention to what their advisors had to say before closing the deal.

        1. Local legal advisors

        The legal advisors may take, for the perception of the executives eager to complete an acquisition, a bit longer than expected to round up facts and properly report the risks found. The perception for this lower pace to reach out the conclusions may differ from the executives due to the delay of seller to provide documents or clarify questions raised.

        Slowing down a bit to the benefit of certainty is a sound advice.

        Experienced Brazilian advisors shall always be included among the teams. Their knowledge on facing subtle change of applicable laws, rules or predominant court decisions is certainly valuable for better understanding the status of the target and the ways to mitigate risks.

        Certain facts may not seem at first as significant risk for first timers dealing with Brazilian matters. However, the advisors do have a reason to raise the point and should be properly heard. Examples such as absence of one single clear certificate issued by a government department or a missing report on disposal of solid residues, that may not seem a big issue, could turn into a risk of suspension of activities of a plant.

        An audit company is usually hired to identify tax and labor contingencies, but the audit company does not evaluate nor assess the numbers, only the maximum exposure. The legal advisors are in charge of the risk assessment and determination of the estimate of the contingencies. It is up to the buyer to accept and negotiate the relevant coverage for such contingencies.

        Seller may not give full details of all issues of the target at first. It is the role of the advisors to investigate, request further documents and clarification to bring matters that affect the business to buyer’s attention. In a good faith scenario, seller would be willing to discuss the matters, to avoid future disputes or frustrations to buyer.

        1. Debt

        Charges, penalties, interests and other compensations in financial operations turns these contracts full of minor details and very complex in anywhere in the world. Brazilian contracts are not exception. That is the reason why a proper assessment of the financial operations and obtain the real picture of the debt and related costs.

        As usual, attention to change of control provisions are also relevant to mitigate risks – absence of consent or non-compliance of the required steps prior to closing the operation can cause acceleration of the financial operation and trigger cross-default provisions in other contracts that can also lead to acceleration of the financial operations.

        1. Tax/labor contingencies

        Calculation and estimate of tax contingencies are specific for each tax and requires knowledge and a sound judgment to estimate exposure and appoint measures to cover the risks. Same level of care applies to labor-related contingencies.

        Tax and labor matters are usually the most relevant risks to be observed in a Brazilian target. Complexity of regulation and the amount of obligations to fulfill makes these points significant.

        1. Material adverse change

        Material adverse change clauses – “MAC Clauses” – are contractual provisions to mitigate negative effects or a substantial change to the parties. These provisions are admitted in Brazilian law, in view the M&A transaction documents are executed in good faith and respecting the parties’ freedom to commit to certain obligations.

        Needless to say, the MAC Clauses should contain crystal clear language, with objective description of the facts, well defined applicable time period, cause and consequences duly described for proper and easy execution. If not, determination of MAC Clause event shall end on a dispute.

        In the absence of MAC Clauses, Brazilian Civil Code contemplates the ability to any party in a continuous contractual relation to seek for the termination of the contract, by virtue of extraordinary and unpredictable facts, in the event such party is affected with excessive onus and generates extreme advantage to another party. Determination whether the parties were subject to extraordinary and unpredictable facts would depend nevertheless on ruling by a judge or arbitrator, as provided in the acquisition documents.

        1. Guarantees and Indemnification

        For avoidance of future problems, the buyer should obtain strong and prompt executable guarantees. The (a) ability to withhold payments, (b) deposit of part of the purchase price in escrow account with clear rules for withdrawing the escrow amount are most likely measures to ensure a prompt indemnification. From previous experiences, other guarantees like pledge of shares, personal guarantee, lien or even chattel mortgage over real property are harder to execute and indemnify the prejudiced party.

        De minimis clauses (minimum amount for a party to be indemnified – if not reached, the prejudiced party is not going to receive any indemnification) or basket (limitation of indemnifiable amount) are additions to the provisions for guarantees also acceptable for Brazilian M&A transactions.

        The experienced advisors will make a difference to assist on the drafting of these provisions and to reflect what the parties discussed and agreed on the table.

        1. Break-up Fees

        A conscious buyer will certainly avoid the risk of incurring in heavy break-up fees, with proper assessment provided by competent advisors of what may happen until closing. Nevertheless, in certain cases, even after signing a binding document, it might make sense paying a break-up fee even if substantial rather than entering into a risky transaction.

        Recent Brazilian M&A transactions have included break-up fees, applicable in case of the regulatory restrictions are too high or in case the buyer gives up the acquisition. The highest break-up fee known was included in an offer made by Paper Excellence (member of Asia Pulp and Paper, based in Indonesia) was BRL 4 billion (over USD 1 billion or around EUR 900 million). The deal was not closed as another bidder had better credit check (even proposing lower break-up fees).

        In 2015, Ânima paid BRL 46 million (around USD 12.5 million or EUR 10.6 million) of break-up fees to Whitney do Brasil – education sector – for giving up the acquisition due to changes on students’ public financing rules. In 2018, Ultragaz paid BRL 280 million (around USD 75 million or EUR 64 million) in break-up fees to Liquigás, due to the veto by the Brazilian antitrust authority for the operation.

        1. Recommendations

        In this regard, the recommendations to avoid the referred reasons for a not satisfactory failure in M&A transactions in Brazil are:

        • Rely on local advisors: make sure that local Brazilian experts are included in the advisory team – the proper Brazilian legal, accountancy, tax and business experts can provide you with the necessary and valuable information for the proper decision-making process;
        • Listen to what the local advisors have to say: some matters raised may not seem to harm the deal, but it is important to let your advisor give you the full explanation and the reasons why the advisor is concerned about the topic. The advisor has a reason to bring the matters to discussion;
        • On the buy-side, ensure the existence of proper guarantees – feasible and enforceable – for prompt reimbursement of the losses, instead of discussions or long disputes;
        • Be very attentive in the preparation and discussion of the indemnification, procedure for indemnifying a prejudiced party, accommodating the business negotiation and the coverage to the risks explained by the advisors;
        • MAC Clauses shall be clear, precise and objective; and
        • However hard may be, it might make sense paying a break-up fee instead of completing a risky transaction.

        The author of this article is Paulo Yamaguchi

        Mercedes Clavell

        Aree di attività

        • Franchising
        • Immigrazione
        • Commercio internazionale
        • M&A
        • Real estate
        Contatta Mercedes

        Scrivi a Mercedes





          Leggi la privacy policy di Legalmondo.
          Questo sito è protetto da reCAPTCHA e si applicano le Norme sulla privacy e i Termini di servizio di Google.

          Spain – Purchase of a business unit and tax liability

          16 Ottobre 2018

          • Spagna
          • Diritto societario
          • M&A

          This week the Interim Injunction Judge of the Netherlands Commercial Court ruled in summary proceedings, following a video hearing, in a case on a EUR 169 million transaction where the plaintiff argued that the final transaction had been concluded and the defendant should proceed with the deal.

          This in an – intended – transaction where the letter of intent stipulates that a EUR 30 million break fee is due when no final agreement is signed.

          In addition to ruling on this question of construction of an agreement under Dutch law, the judge also had to rule on the break fee if no agreement was concluded and whether it should be amended or reduced because of the current Coronavirus / Covid-19 crisis.

          English Language proceedings in a Dutch state court, the Netherlands Commercial Court (NCC)

          The case is not just interesting because of the way contract formation is construed under Dutch law and application of concepts of force majeure, unforeseen circumstances and amendment of agreements under the concepts of reasonableness and fairness as well as mitigation of contractual penalties, but also interesting because it was ruled on by a judge of the English language chamber of the Netherlands Commercial Court (NCC).

          This new (2019) Dutch state court offers a relatively fast and cost-effective alternative for international commercial litigation, and in particular arbitration, in a neutral jurisdiction with professional judges selected for both their experience in international disputes and their command of English.

          The dispute regarding the construction of an M&A agreement under Dutch law in an international setting

          The facts are straightforward. Parties (located in New York, USA and the Netherlands) dispute whether final agreement on the EUR 169 million transaction has been reached but do agree a break fee of €30 million in case of non-signature of the final agreement was agreed. However, in addition to claiming there is no final agreement, the defendant also argues that the break fee – due when there is no final agreement – should be reduced or changed due to the coronavirus crisis.

          As to contract formation it must be noted that Dutch law allows broad leeway on how to communicate what may or may not be an offer or acceptance. The standard is what a reasonable person in the same circumstances would have understood their communications to mean.  Here, the critical fact is that the defendant did not sign the so-called “Transaction Agreement”. The letter of intent’s binary mechanism (either execute and deliver the paperwork for the Transaction Agreement by the agreed date or pay a EUR 30 million fee) may not have been an absolute requirement for contract formation (under Dutch law) but has significant evidentiary weight. In M&A practice – also under Dutch law – with which these parties are thoroughly familiar with, this sets a very high bar for  concluding a contract was agreed other than by explicit written agreement. So, parties may generally comfortably rely on what they have agreed on in writing with the assistance of their advisors.

          The communications relied on by claimant in this case did not clear the very high bar to assume that despite the mechanism of the letter of intent and the lack of a signed Transaction Agreement there still was a binding agreement. In particular attributing the other party’s advisers’ statements and/or conduct to the contracting party they represent did not work for the claimant in this case as per the verdict nothing suggested that the advisers would be handling everything, including entering into the agreement.

          Court order for actual performance of a – deemed – agreement on an M&A deal?

          The Interim Injunction Judge finds that there is not a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits so as to justify an interim measure ordering the defendant to actually perform its obligations under the disputed Transaction Agreement (payment of EUR 169 million and take the claimant’s 50% stake in an equestrian show-jumping business).

          Enforcement of the break fee despite “Coronavirus”?

          Failing the conclusion of an agreement, there was still another question to answer as the letter of intent mechanism re the break fee as such was not disputed. Should the Court enforce the full EUR 30 million fee in the current COVID-19 circumstances? Or should the fee’s effects be modified, mitigated or reduced in some way, or  the fee agreement should even be dissolved?

          Unforeseen circumstances, reasonableness and fairness

          The Interim Injunction Judge rules that the coronavirus crisis may be an unforeseen circumstance, but it is not of such a nature that, according to standards of reasonableness and fairness, the plaintiff cannot expect the break fee obligation to remain unchanged. The purpose of the break fee is to encourage parties to enter into the transaction and attribute / share risks between them. As such the fee limits the exposure of the parties. Payment of the fee is a quick way out of the obligation to pay the purchase price of EUR 169 million and the risks of keeping the target company financially afloat. If financially the coronavirus crisis turns out less disastrous than expected, the fee of EUR 30 million may seem high, but that is what the parties already considered reasonable when they waived their right to invoke the unreasonableness of the fee. The claim for payment of the EUR 30 million break fee is therefore upheld by the Interim Injunction Judge.

          Applicable law and the actual practice of it by the courts

          The relevant three articles are in this case articles 6:94, 6:248 and 6:258 of the Dutch Civil Code. They relate to the mitigation of contractual penalties, unforeseen circumstances and amendment of the agreement under the tenets of reasonableness and fairness. Under Dutch law the courts must with all three exercise caution. Contracts must generally be enforced as agreed. The parties’ autonomy is deemed paramount and the courts’ attitude is deferential. All three articles use language stating, essentially, that interference by the courts in the contract’s operation is allowed only to avoid an “unacceptable” impact, as assessed under standards of reasonableness and fairness.

          There is at this moment of course no well- established case law on COVID-19. However, commentators have provided guidance that is very helpful to think through the issues. Recently a “share the pain” approach has been advocated by a renowned law Professor, Tjittes, who focuses on preserving the parties’ contractual equilibrium in the current circumstances. This is, in the Court’s analysis, the right way to look at the agreement here. There is no evidence in the record suggesting that the parties contemplated or discussed the full and exceptional impact of the COVID-19 crisis. The crisis may or may not be unprovided for.  However, the court rules in the current case there is no need to rule on this issue. Even if the crisis is unprovided for, there is no support in the record for the proposition that the crisis makes it unacceptable for the claimant to demand strict performance by the defendant. The reasons are straightforward.

          The break fee allocates risk and expresses commitment and caps exposure. The harm to the business may be substantial and structural, or it may be short-term and minimal. Either way, the best “share the pain” solution, to preserve the contractual equilibrium in the agreement, is for the defendant to pay the fee as written in the letter of intent. This allocates a defined risk to one party, and actual or potential risks to the other party. Reducing the break fee in any business downturn, the fee’s express purpose – comfort and confidence to get the deal done – would not be accomplished and be derived in precisely the circumstances in which it should be robust. As a result, the Court therefore orders to pay the full EUR 30 million fee. So the break fee stipulation works under the circumstances without mitigation because of the Corona outbreak.

          The Netherlands Commercial Court, continued

          As already indicated above, the case is interesting because the verdict has been rendered by a Dutch state court in English and the proceedings where also in English. Not because of a special privilege granted in a specific case but based on an agreement between parties with a proper choice of forum clause for this court. In addition to the benefit to of having an English forum without mandatorily relying on either arbitration or choosing an anglophone court, it also has the benefit of it being a state court with the application of the regular Dutch civil procedure law, which is well known by it’s practitioners and reduces the risk of surprises of a procedural nature.  As it is as such also a “normal” state court, there is the right to appeal and particularly effective under Dutch law access to expedited proceeding as was also the case in the example referred to above. This means a regular procedure with full application of all evidentiary rules may still follow, overturning or confirming this preliminary verdict in summary proceedings.

          Novel technology in proceedings

          Another first or at least a novel application is that all submissions were made in eNCC, a document upload procedure for the NCC. Where the introduction of electronic communication and litigation in the Dutch court system has failed spectacularly, the innovations are now all following in quick order and quite effective. As a consequence of the Coronavirus outbreak several steps have been quickly tried in practice and thereafter formally set up. At present this – finally – includes a secure email-correspondence system between attorneys and the courts.

          And, also by special order of the Court in this present case, given the current COVID-19 restrictions the matter was dealt with at a public videoconference hearing on 22 April 2020 and the case was set for judgment on 29 April 2020 and published on 30 April 2020.

          Even though it is a novel application, it is highly likely that similar arrangements will continue even after expiry of current emergency measures. In several Dutch courts videoconference hearings are applied on a voluntary basis and is expected that the arrangements will be formalized.

          Eligibility of cases for the Netherlands Commercial Court

          Of more general interest are the requirements for matters that may be submitted to NCC:

          • the Amsterdam District Court or Amsterdam Court of Appeal has jurisdiction
          • the parties have expressly agreed in writing that proceedings will be in English before the NCC (the ‘NCC agreement’)
          • the action is a civil or commercial matter within the parties’ autonomy
          • the matter concerns an international dispute.

          The NCC agreement can be recorded in a clause, either before or after the dispute arises. The Court even recommends specific wording:

          “All disputes arising out of or in connection with this agreement will be resolved by the Amsterdam District Court following proceedings in English before the Chamber for International Commercial Matters (“Netherlands Commercial Court” or “NCC District Court”), to the exclusion of the jurisdiction of any other courts. An action for interim measures, including protective measures, available under Dutch law may be brought in the NCC’s Court in Summary Proceedings (CSP) in proceedings in English. Any appeals against NCC or CSP judgments will be submitted to the Amsterdam Court of Appeal’s Chamber for International Commercial Matters (“Netherlands Commercial Court of Appeal” or “NCCA”).”

          The phrase “to the exclusion of the jurisdiction of any other courts” is included in light of the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements. It is not mandatory to include it of course and parties may decide not to exclude the jurisdiction of other courts or make other arrangements they consider appropriate. The only requirement being that such arrangements comply with the rules of jurisdiction and contract. Please note that choice of court agreements are exclusive unless the parties have “expressly provided” or “agreed” otherwise (as per the Hague Convention and Recast Brussels I Regulation).

          Parties in a pending case before another Dutch court or chamber may request that their case be referred to NCC District Court or NCC Court of Appeal. One of the requirements is to agree on a clause that takes the case to the NCC and makes English the language of the proceedings. The NCC recommends using this language:

          We hereby agree that all disputes in connection with the case [name parties], which is currently pending at the *** District Court (case number ***), will be resolved by the Amsterdam District Court following proceedings in English before the Chamber for International Commercial Matters (“Netherlands Commercial Court” or ”NCC District Court). Any action for interim measures, including protective measures, available under Dutch law will be brought in the NCC’s Court in Summary Proceedings (CSP) in proceedings in English. Any appeals against NCC or CSP judgments will be submitted to the Amsterdam Court of Appeal’s Chamber for International Commercial Matters (“Netherlands Commercial Court of Appeal” or “NCC Court of Appeal”).

          To request a referral, a motion must be made before the other chamber or court where the action is pending, stating the request and contesting jurisdiction (if the case is not in Amsterdam) on the basis of a choice-of-court agreement (see before).

          Additional arrangements in the proceedings before the Netherlands Commercial Court

          Before or during the proceedings, parties can also agree special arrangements in a customized NCC clause or in another appropriate manner. Such arrangements may include matters such as the following:

          • the law applicable to the substantive dispute
          • the appointment of a court reporter for preparing records of hearings and the costs of preparing those records
          • an agreement on evidence that departs from the general rules
          • the disclosure of confidential documents
          • the submission of a written witness statement prior to the witness examination
          • the manner of taking witness testimony
          • the costs of the proceedings.

          Visiting lawyers and typical course of the procedure

          All acts of process are in principle carried out by a member of the Dutch Bar. Member of the Bar in an EU or EEA Member State or Switzerland may work in accordance with Article 16e of the Advocates Act (in conjunction with a member of the Dutch Bar). Other visiting lawyers may be allowed to speak at any hearing.

          The proceedings will typically follow the below steps:

          • Submitting the initiating document by the plaintiff (summons or request as per Dutch law)
          • Assigned to three judges and a senior law clerk.
          • The defendant submits its defence statement.
          • Case management conference or motion hearing (e.g. also in respect of preliminary issues such as competence, applicable law etc.) where parties may present their arguments.
          • Judgment on motions: the court rules on the motions. Testimony, expert appointment, either at this stage or earlier or later.
          • The court may allow the parties to submit further written statements.
          • Hearing: the court interviews the parties and allows them to present their arguments. The court may enquire whether the dispute could be resolved amicably and, where appropriate, assist the parties in a settlement process. If appropriate, the court may discuss with the parties whether it would be advisable to submit part or all of the dispute to a mediator. At the end of the hearing, the court will discuss with the parties what the next steps should be.
          • Verdict: this may be a final judgment on the claims or an interim judgment ordering one or more parties to produce evidence, allowing the parties to submit written submissions on certain aspects of the case, appointing one or more experts or taking other steps.

          Continuous updates, online resources Netherlands Commercial Court

          As a final note the English language website of the Netherlands Commercial Court provides ample information on procedure and practical issues and is updated with a high frequence. Under current circumstance even at a higher pace. In particular for practitioners it’s recommended to regularly consult the website. https://www.rechtspraak.nl/English/NCC/Pages/default.aspx

          Le operazioni di acquisizione (M&A) in Italia, nella maggior parte dei casi, vengono realizzate attraverso acquisto di partecipazioni (‘share deal’) o di azienda o ramo d’azienda (‘asset deal’). Per ragioni principalmente fiscali sono più frequenti gli share deal rispetto agli asset deal, nonostante l’asset deal consenta una migliore limitazione dei rischi per l’acquirente. Vedremo le principali differenze tra share deal e asset deal in termini di rischi e di rapporti tra venditore e acquirente.

          Preferenza per operazioni di M&A mediante acquisto di partecipazioni (‘share deal’) rispetto ad acquisto di azienda o ramo d’azienda (‘asset deal’) nel mercato italiano

          In Italia, le operazione di acquisizione (M&A) vengono realizzate, nella maggior parte dei casi, attraverso acquisto di partecipazioni (‘share deal’) o di azienda o ramo d’azienda (‘asset deal’). Altre modalità, come la fusione, sono meno frequenti.

          Con l’acquisto di quote o azioni della società acquisita (‘share deal’) l’acquirente acquisisce, indirettamente, l’intero patrimonio aziendale (attività, passività, rapporti) e quindi si fa carico di tutti i rischi relativi alla precedente gestione della società.

          Con l’acquisto dell’azienda o di un ramo d’azienda (‘asset deal’) l’acquirente acquisisce un insieme di beni e rapporti organizzati per l’esercizio dell’impresa (immobili, impianti, dipendenti, contratti, crediti, debiti, ecc.). Il vantaggio dell’asset deal risiede nella possibilità per le parti di definire il perimetro del trasferimento e, quindi, per l’acquirente, di limitare i rischi legali dell’operazione.

          Nonostante questo vantaggio, la maggior parte delle operazioni di acquisizione in Italia avviene attraverso acquisto di partecipazioni. Nel 2018 gli acquisti di partecipazioni (azioni o quote) sono state circa 78.400, mentre le cessioni di azienda sono state circa 35.900 (fonte: www.notariato.it/it/news/dati-statistici-notarili-anno-2018). E va osservato che il dato delle cessioni d’azienda comprende anche le aziende di piccole o piccolissime dimensioni esercitate da imprenditori individuali, per le quali l’alternativa dello share deal (pur praticabile, attraverso il conferimento dell’azienda in una newco e la cessione delle partecipazioni nella newco) non è percorribile in concreto per ragioni di costo.

          Costi fiscali delle operazioni di acquisizione (M&A) in Italia

          La principale ragione della preferenza per l’acquisto di partecipazione (‘share deal’) rispetto all’acquisto di azienda (‘asset deal’) risiede nei costi fiscali dell’operazione. Vediamo quali sono, in linea generale.

          Nell’acquisto di partecipazioni, le imposte dirette a carico del venditore vengono calcolate sulla plusvalenza, secondo le seguenti percentuali:

          • se il venditore è una società di capitali (s.p.a.; s.r.l.; s.a.p.a.) l’aliquota è del 24% della plusvalenza. Ma, a determinate condizioni, si applica il regime della c.d. PEX (participation exemption) con applicazione dell’aliquota del 24% solo sul 5% della plusvalenza.
          • Se il venditore è una persona fisica l’aliquota sulla plusvalenza è del 26%.
          • Se il venditore è una società di persone (s.s.; s.n.c..; s.a.s.) la plusvalenza è integralmente imponibile, tuttavia al ricorrere di determinate condizioni, l’imponibilità è limitata al 60% dell’ammontare della plusvalenza. In entrambi i casi l’aliquota applicabile è quella marginale riferita a ciascun socio a cui il reddito viene imputato per trasparenza.

          Nell’acquisto di partecipazioni si applica l’imposta di registro, normalmente a carico dell’acquirente, di euro 200.

          Anche nell’acquisto di azienda, le imposte dirette a carico del venditore vengono calcolate sulla plusvalenza. Se il venditore è una società di capitali, l’aliquota è del 24% della plusvalenza. Se il venditore è una società di persone (con soci persone fisiche) o un imprenditore individuale, le aliquote dipendono dal reddito del venditore.

          Nell’acquisto di azienda si applicano le imposte indirette, normalmente a carico dell’acquirente, calcolate sulla parte del prezzo attribuibile ai singoli beni trasferiti. Il prezzo è il risultato delle attività trasferite detratte le passività trasferite. Le percentuali sono diverse a seconda del tipo di beni. In generale:

          • ai beni mobili si applica una imposta di registro del 3%;
          • all’avviamento si applica una imposta di registro del 3%;
          • ai fabbricati si applica una imposta di registro del 9% (e imposte ipotecarie e catastali in misura fissa di euro 50 ciascuna);
          • ai terreni si applica una imposta di registro tra il 9 e il 12% (a seconda dell’acquirente) e imposte ipotecarie e catastali in misura fissa di euro 50 ciascuna.

          Nel caso in cui l’azienda sia composta da beni soggetti ad aliquote diverse e le parti abbiano pattuito un corrispettivo unico, senza distinzione in merito al valore attribuibile ai singoli beni, l’imposta deve calcolarsi applicando all’unico corrispettivo pattuito l’aliquota più elevata.

          Va sottolineato che l’Agenzia delle Entrate può sottoporre ad accertamento il valore attribuito dalle parti ai beni immobili e all’avviamento, con conseguente rischio di applicazione di maggiori imposte.

          Share deal e asset deal: rischi e responsabilità verso i terzi

          Nell’acquisto di quote o azioni (‘share deal’) l’acquirente si fa carico, indirettamente, di tutti i rischi relativi alla precedente gestione della società.

          Nell’acquisto dell’azienda o di un ramo d’azienda (‘asset deal’), invece, le parti possono decidere il perimetro del trasferimento (quali beni e rapporti) così stabilendo, nei rapporti tra loro, i rischi che l’acquirente assume.

          Vi sono però alcune norme, che le parti non possono derogare, relative ai rapporti con i terzi, che influiscono significativamente sui rischi per il venditore e l’acquirente e quindi sulla negoziazione dell’accordo tra le parti. Le principali sono le seguenti.

          • Lavoratori dipendenti: il rapporto di lavoro continua con l’acquirente dell’azienda. Il venditore e l’acquirente sono obbligati in solido per tutti i crediti del lavoratore al momento del trasferimento (art. 2112 c.c.).
          • Debiti: il venditore è obbligato al pagamento di tutti i debiti sino alla data del trasferimento. L’acquirente è obbligato per i debiti che risultano dai libri contabili (art. 2560 c.c.).
          • Debiti e responsabilità fiscali: il venditore è obbligato al pagamento di debiti, imposte e sanzioni fiscali relative al periodo sino alla data del trasferimento.
            L’acquirente, in aggiunta all’obbligo relativo ai debiti fiscali che risultano dai libri contabili (art. 2560 c.c.), è responsabile per le imposte e sanzioni, anche se non risultano dai libri contabili, con i seguenti limiti (art. 14 D.lgs. 472/1997):
          • beneficio della preventiva escussione del venditore;
          • fino al valore dell’azienda o del ramo d’azienda acquistato;
          • per le imposte e sanzioni non ancora contestate, la responsabilità riguarda solo quelle relative all’anno della vendita dell’azienda e ai due precedenti; per le imposte e sanzioni relative al periodo anteriore ai due anni precedenti la vendita dell’azienda, la responsabilità riguarda solo quelle contestate entro tale periodo;
          • nei limiti del debito risultante alla data di trasferimento dagli atti degli uffici dell’amministrazione finanziaria. L’Agenzia delle Entrate è tenuta a rilasciare un certificato sull’esistenza di contestazioni in corso e sui debiti. Il certificato negativo, o non rilasciato entro 40 giorni dalla richiesta, libera l’acquirente da responsabilità.
          • Contratti: le parti possono scegliere quali contratti trasferire. Rispetto ai contratti trasferiti, l’acquirente subentra, anche senza il consenso del terzo contraente, nei contratti per l’esercizio dell’azienda che non hanno carattere personale (sono a carattere personale quelli che prevedono da parte del venditore una prestazione oggettivamente infungibile o soggettivamente infungibile). Inoltre il terzo contraente può recedere dal contratto entro tre mesi, se sussiste una giusta causa (ad esempio se l’acquirente non garantisce, per la propria situazione patrimoniale o per capacità tecniche, di poter adempiere al contratto) (art. 2558 c.c.).

          Alcuni strumenti per affrontare i rischi

          Per affrontare i rischi derivanti dalle responsabilità verso i terzi e i rischi generali connessi all’acquisizione, vi sono diversi strumenti negoziali e contrattuali che possono essere utilizzati. Vediamone alcuni.

          Nelle operazioni di acquisto dell’azienda o di rami d’azienda (‘asset deal’):

          • Lavoratori dipendenti: è possibile concordare con il lavoratore modifiche alle condizioni contrattuali e rinunce alla responsabilità solidale dell’acquirente e del venditore (ex art. 2112 c.c.). L’accordo con i lavoratore per essere valido deve essere concluso in sede ‘protetta’ (ad esempio: con l’assistenza delle organizzazioni sindacali).
          • Debiti:
          • trasferire all’acquirente i debiti riducendo il prezzo in misura corrispondente; la riduzione del prezzo comporta, inoltre, una minor costo fiscale dell’operazione. In caso di trasferimento dei debiti, per tutelare il venditore si può ottenere dal creditore una dichiarazione di liberazione del venditore dalla responsabilità ex art. 2560 c.c.; oppure si può prevedere che il pagamento del debito da parte dell’acquirente avvenga contestualmente al trasferimento dell’azienda (‘closing’).
          • Per i debiti non trasferiti all’acquirente, ottenere dal creditore una dichiarazione di liberazione dell’acquirente dalla responsabilità ex art. 2560 c.c.
          • Per i debiti per i quali non sia possibile ottenere la dichiarazione di liberazione da parte del creditore, pattuire forme di garanzia a favore del venditore (per i debiti trasferiti) o a favore dell’acquirente (per i debiti non trasferiti), quali ad esempio la dilazione del pagamento (a favore dell’acquirente) di parte del prezzo, il deposito fiduciario (‘escrow’) di parte del prezzo, fideiussioni bancarie o da parte dei soci.
          • Debiti e responsabilità fiscali:
          • ottenere dall’Agenzia delle Entrate il certificato ex art. 14 D.lgs. 472/1997 sui debiti e le contestazioni in corso;
          • trasferire all’acquirente i debiti riducendo il prezzo in misura corrispondente;
          • pattuire le forme di garanzia a favore del venditore (per i debiti trasferiti) e a favore dell’acquirente (per i debiti non trasferiti o per le contestazioni che non sono ancora debiti), quali ad esempio quelle sopra esposte per i debiti in generale.
          • Contratti: per quelli che vengono trasferiti:
          • verificare che le prestazioni a carico del venditore sino alla data del trasferimento siano state regolarmente adempiute, per evitare il rischio di contestazioni del terzo contraente che possono bloccare l’esecuzione del contratto;
          • almeno per i contratti più importanti (e salvo ragioni di riservatezza), cercare di ottenere conferma dal terzo contraente del benestare al trasferimento del contratto.

          Nelle operazioni di acquisto di partecipazioni (‘share deal’), in cui l’acquirente si fa carico, indirettamente, di tutti i rischi relativi alla precedente gestione della società, alcuni strumenti sono:

          • Due diligence. Svolgere una approfondita due diligence legale, fiscale e contabile sulla società, per valutare preventivamente i rischi e gestirli nella trattativa e nei contratti.
          • Dichiarazioni e garanzie (‘R&W’) e indennizzo. Prevedere nel contratto di acquisizione (‘share purchase agreement’) un set dettagliato di dichiarazioni e garanzie – e obblighi di indennizzo in caso di non conformità – a carico del venditore relativamente alla situazione della società (‘business warranties’: bilancio; situazione patrimoniale di riferimento; contratti; contenzioso; rispetto della normativa ambientale; autorizzazioni per lo svolgimento dell’attività; debiti; crediti ecc.). La trattativa sulle dichiarazioni e garanzie normalmente recepisce, gestendoli, gli esiti della due diligence (ad esempio: viene escluso dalle dichiarazioni e garanzie e dall’indennizzo un contenzioso emerso in due diligence, del quale le parti tengono conto nella definizione del prezzo). La pattuizione di dichiarazioni e garanzie sulla situazione della società (‘business warranties’) e dell’obbligo di indennizzo sono necessari negli share deal in Italia, in quanto in mancanza di tali clausole l’acquirente non può ottenere dal venditore (salvo situazioni estreme e molto rare) un risarcimento o indennizzo in caso la situazione della società sia diversa da quella considerata al momento dell’acquisto (così ad esempio: Cass. Civ. 16963/2014).
          • Garanzie per l’acquirente. Strumenti per garantire all’acquirente l’effettiva possibilità di ottenere l’indennizzo (o parte dell’indennizzo) in caso di non conformità delle dichiarazioni e garanzie. Tra queste: (a) la dilazione del pagamento di parte del prezzo; (b) il versamento di parte del prezzo in un deposito fiduciario (‘escrow’) per la durata delle dichiarazioni e garanzie e, in caso di contestazioni, fino a che la contestazione non è definita; (c) fideiussione bancaria;; (d) polizza W&I, contratto di assicurazione che copre il rischio dell’acquirente in caso di violazioni di dichiarazioni e garanzie, sino ad un importo massimo (ed esclusi alcuni rischi).

          Altri fattori che incidono sulla scelta tra share deal e asset deal

          Naturalmente la scelta di realizzare un’operazione di acquisizione in Italia mediante share deal o asset deal, dipende anche da altri fattori oltre a quello dei costi fiscali dell’operazione. Eccone alcuni.

          • Acquisto di parte del business. Si sceglie l’asset deal, quando l’operazione non riguarda l’acquisto dell’intera azienda del venditore ma solo una sua parte (un ramo d’azienda).
          • Situazione della società problematica. Si sceglie l’asset deal quando la situazione della società target è così problematica che l’acquirente non è disponibile ad assumere tutti i rischi derivanti dalla precedente gestione, ma solo parte di essi.
          • Mantenimento di un ruolo da parte del venditore. Si sceglie lo share deal quando si vuole conservare al venditore un ruolo nella società acquisita. In questo caso, oltre ad un ruolo nel management, è frequente il mantenimento da parte del venditore di una partecipazione di minoranza, con clausole di exit (diritti di put e call) decorso un certo periodo di tempo. Clausole che, spesso, legano il prezzo ai risultati futuri e, quindi, nell’interesse dell’acquirente incentivano il venditore nel ruolo manageriale e, nell’interesse del venditore, valorizzano prospettive reddituali non concretizzate al momento dell’acquisto.

          Dal 1° agosto 2021 non sarà più necessario, per la costituzione di una SRL – società a responsabilità limitata, recarsi dal notaio: la procedura potrà anche essere realizzata completamente on line, salvo casi eccezionali. Ciò è previsto dalla Direttiva U.E. 2019/1151, che impone agli stati di adeguarsi entro due anni. Vediamo cosa prevede la Direttiva.

          Come si costituisce una S.r.l. in Italia oggi

          In Italia, per costituire una società e, in particolare, una società a responsabilità limitata, è sempre necessario rivolgersi ad un notaio.

          Ciò vale anche per la c.d. «SRL semplificata», introdotta nel 2012 dal Decreto Legge «Liberalizzazioni». In questo caso, infatti, la legge prevede che, a fronte dell’utilizzo di uno statuto standard non modificabile, non vi siano oneri notarili da sostenere. Tuttavia, resta sempre necessario comparire avanti ad un notaio.

          Cosa cambierà da agosto 2021 con il recepimento della Direttiva U.E. 2019/1151

          Le cose dovranno cambiare con l’entrata in vigore della Direttiva U.E. 2019/1151, che modifica la Direttiva U.E. 2017/1132 in tema di uso di strumenti e processi digitali nel diritto societario.

          Entro il 1° agosto 2021, gli Stati membri dovranno aggiornare le procedure per la costituzione di una società in modo da garantire un doppio binario.

          Dovrà, cioè, essere possibile costituire una società sia con il metodo tradizionale, ossia rivolgendosi ad un notaio, oppure con procedure esclusivamente on line.

          Due eccezioni

          • l’art. 13-ter, par. 4, dispone che «ove sia giustificato da motivi di interesse pubblico per impedire l’usurpazione o l’alterazione di identità, gli Stati membri possono adottare misure che potrebbero richiedere la presenza fisica ai fini della verifica dell’identità del richiedente dinanzi a un’autorità o a qualsiasi persona od organismo incaricati… Gli Stati membri provvedono affinché la presenza fisica del richiedente possa essere richiesta solo se vi sono motivi di sospettare una falsificazione dell’identità e garantiscono che qualsiasi altra fase della procedura possa essere completata online»;
          • l’art. 13-octies, co. 8, dispone che «ove giustificato da motivi di interesse pubblici a garantire il rispetto delle norme sulla capacità giuridica e sull’autorità dei richiedenti di rappresentare una società, qualsiasi autorità o qualsiasi persona od organismo incaricato… può chiedere la presenza fisica del richiedente… Gli Stati membri garantiscono che tutte le altre fasi della procedura possano essere comunque completate on line».

          Gli Stati membri dovranno mettere a disposizione i modelli necessari per la costituzione delle società a responsabilità limitata «in almeno una lingua ufficiale dell’Unione ampiamente compresa dal maggior numero possibile di utenti transfrontalieri».

          Rischi

          La direttiva rappresenta, indubbiamente, un interessante tentativo di semplificazione, il cui successo dipenderà, tuttavia, da come verrà recepita dai singoli Stati membri.

          I rischi principali sono almeno due:

          1. il primo, facilmente intuibile, è che gli Stati membri rendano troppo oneroso l’accertamento dell’identità od il potere rappresentativo dei richiedenti, rendendo più semplice, in definitiva, il tradizionale ricorso ad un notaio;
          2. il secondo è che le procedure on line siano poco chiare o comprensibili, specie agli utenti stranieri. In tal senso, non appare sufficiente che i modelli siano resi disponibili, ma sarà necessario che le procedure online siano orientate alla maggiore semplificazione possibile e che i modelli siano tutti disponibili almeno in lingua inglese.

          Infine, è evidente che la digitalizzazione del procedimento di costituzione di una società non elimina l’opportunità di rivolgersi ad un professionista con il compito di consigliare il cliente nelle scelte che sarà necessario fare, ad esempio in materia di corporate governance.

          A legal due diligence of a Brazilian target company should analyze the existence and the content of Agency Agreements, including values paid to the agent and the nature of such payments and the factual situation of the target’s agents, in order to evaluate potential contingencies.

          One usual suspect in legal due diligences of Brazilian target companies in M&A transactions that should not be overlooked is the existence of agency agreements, due to:

          • the obligation to indemnify the agent stipulated by law: at least 1/12th of all commissions paid throughout the entire term of the agency agreement; and
          • the risks for the agency being disregarded and considered as an employment relationship, subjecting the principal to compensate the agent as an employee with all rights, benefits, taxes and social contributions.

          This should be considered for evaluation of potential contingencies and the impacts on the valuation of the target.

          No doubt that agents can be an important component of the sales force of the business and can be strategic for the activity of the principal, in view of a certain independence and for not increasing the payroll of a company.

          On the other hand, under Brazilian laws, the protective nature of the agency demands the principal a considerable level of attention.

          Indemnification

          Brazilian Federal Law No. 4,886/65 as amended – the Brazilian Agency Law – determines that the agent is entitled to, at the termination of an agency agreement, receive an indemnification of 1/12th calculated over all the commissions paid throughout the duration of the entire period of the agency agreement.

          The Brazilian Agency Law stipulates that if the parties sign a new contract within 6 months after the expiration of the previous, the relation between agent and principal shall be deemed as the same relationship and thus, the duration to calculate the indemnification shall encompass the entire period (past and subsequent contract).

          Termination by the agent

          The Brazilian Agency Law also stipulates situations that agent could terminate the contract and still be entitled to receive the 1/12th indemnification:

          • reduction of the activities in disagreement with the contractual stipulation
          • breach of exclusivity (territory and/or products), if so stipulated in the agreement
          • determination of prices that makes the agency unfeasible and
          • default on payment of the commissions
          • force majeure

          Termination without cause

          Termination without cause can be done, upon payment to agent of the indemnification and with a previous notice of at least 30 days, in which situation the agent shall receive the payment of 1/3 of the remuneration received during the previous 90 days prior to the termination.

          Can principal avoid the indemnification?

          The only cases where the 1/12th indemnification would not be applicable are when the contract is terminated by principal with cause. The Brazilian Agency Law has limited situations for principal to terminate the contract with cause:

          • acts by agent causing disrepute of the principal
          • breach of obligations related to the agency activities
          • criminal conviction related to honor, reputation

          These situations shall be clearly demonstrated. Producing the sufficiently strong evidence of the facts to configure cause for termination may not be an easy task, considering some of the facts may be subject to construing and interpreting by the parties, witnesses and ultimately the judge.

          As a result, from past experiences, it is rare to see principals in conditions not to incur in the 1/12th indemnification.

          Potential risk: configuring employment relationship

          In addition to the indemnification, the activities developed by the agent could eventually be deemed as performed by a regular employee of the principal and, in this case, principal could be subject to compensate the agent as an employee.

          Agent vs. employee

          For the appreciation of the employment relationship, the individual acting as agent shall file a labor claim and demonstrate the existence of the employment relationship.

          The Labor Court judge will consider the factual situation, prevailing upon the written agreements or other formal documents. The judge may rely on e-mails, witnesses and other evidence.

          The elements of an employment relationship are:

          • Individual: in case the individual acts by himself to perform the services; Personal services: the services are in fact performed by the individual specifically to the Principal;;
          • Non-eventuality – exclusivity: the services are rendered in a regular basis;
          • Subordination: key factor – the individual has to follow strict instructions directed by principal, such as reporting to an employee of the principal, determined visits;
          • Rewarding – fixed remuneration: the individual is awarded regular amounts and expenses allowances

          In the event the individual can demonstrate the existence of the elements to configure an employment relationship, he/she could have an award to entitle him/her to have his remuneration considered as of a regular employee for the last 5 years.

          As a result, the individual would be awarded the payment of Christmas bonus (equivalent to 1 monthly remuneration per year), vacation allowance (1/3 of a monthly remuneration per year), unemployment guarantee fund (1 monthly remuneration per year) plus other benefits that he/she would be given as an employee of principal (based on the collective bargaining agreement between the employees’ and employers’ unions). The company would also be obliged to make the payment of the co-related social security contributions.

          Needless to say, the result could turn into a considerable potential contingency.

          The author of this article is Paulo Yamaguchi

          Uno dei momenti più delicati di qualsiasi operazione di M&A è sicuramente il momento in cui si affronta il tema delle «garanzie», in particolare con riferimento alla situazione economica, patrimoniale e finanziaria della società o dell’azienda (o di un ramo d’azienda), ovvero le c.d. «business warranties».

          Da un lato, infatti, il compratore vorrebbe «blindare» quanto più possibile il proprio investimento, riducendo al minimo il rischio di sorprese. Al contrario, il venditore vorrebbe contenere il più possibile le garanzie offerte, che spesso si traducono in un limite temporaneo al pieno godimento dei frutti della vendita, di cui magari necessita per effettuare un altro investimento.

          È bene precisare, innanzi tutto, che con il termine «garanzie» si fa normalmente riferimento, in modo atecnico, ad un articolato set di previsioni contrattuali contenenti:

          • le dichiarazioni del venditore circa lo stato di salute della società o dell’azienda (o del ramo d’azienda) ceduta;
          • gli obblighi d’indennizzo assunti dal venditore in caso di «violazione» (ossia non corrispondenza al vero) delle dichiarazioni rese;
          • gli strumenti previsti al fine di assicurare l’effettività degli obblighi d’indennizzo assunti.

          Vi sono diverse ragioni per cui tale set è necessario, ma la principale è che nei contratti di M&A non trovano applicazione le garanzie civilistiche sulle vendita se non limitatamente al bene venduto, pertanto, se il bene venduto sono le partecipazioni, le garanzie non coprono gli asset sottostanti della società, e, nei casi eccezionali in cui trovano applicazione, i termini brevi e le limitazioni stringenti rendono, comunque, opportuna l’assunzione di obbligazioni accessorie volte a garantire il buon esito economico dell’operazione.

          Ciò è confermato dalla pratica: nelle operazioni di M&A non vi è contratto che non includa il set delle garanzie.

          Le dichiarazioni, in particolare, recepiscono normalmente la due diligence svolta dal compratore, preceduta, a sua volta, da un non disclosure agreement (NDA), finalizzato a tutelare le informazioni messe a disposizione.

          Eventuali criticità che dovessero emergere dovranno essere adeguatamente riportate. Ovviamente, non è detto che un’eventuale criticità, laddove si concretizzi, debba necessariamente far scattare un obbligo d’indennizzo. Spetterà alle parti regolamentare tale aspetto, potendo anche prevedere che il relativo rischio resti a carico del compratore, magari a fronte di una riduzione del prezzo.

          In merito all’obbligo d’indennizzo dovranno poi essere attentamente negoziati alcuni aspetti. I principali sono sicuramente:

          • la durata (es. maggiore per le garanzie fiscali);
          • a chi spetta l’eventuale indennizzo (al compratore o alla società; all’uno o all’altra a seconda dei casi);
          • eventuali detrazioni e /o limitazioni (es. perdite fiscali);
          • l’importo massimo indennizzabile;
          • un’eventuale franchigia;
          • la procedura d’indennizzo (es. termini per la richiesta, procedura di composizione, situazioni particolari, etc.).

          Si tratta di aspetti importantissimi, che non devono essere sottovalutati. È chiaro, ad esempio, che non disciplinare adeguatamente la procedura d’indennizzo rischia di vanificare tutto il lavoro fatto prima.

          Infine, dovranno essere previsti strumenti idonei al fine di assicurare la tutela effettiva del compratore. Tra questi, quelli più tradizionali sono:

          • la fideiussione;
          • il contratto autonomo di garanzia;
          • il deposito fiduciario («escrow»);
          • la dilazione di pagamento;
          • il meccanismo di «earn out»;
          • il c.d. «price adjustment»;
          • la lettera di patronage;
          • il pegno e/o l’ipoteca.

          Si tratta di strumenti tutti più o meno largamente utilizzati nella pratica, che presentano ciascuno dei pro e dei contro.

          Qui, tuttavia, vogliamo occuparci di un nuovo strumento di natura assicurativa, a cui si sta cominciando a fare ricorso negli ultimi tempi: le c.d. «Polizze Warranty & Indemnity».

          Con una polizza W&I, in pratica, l’assicuratore, a fronte del pagamento di un premio, assume su di sé il rischio derivante dalla violazione delle dichiarazioni contenute in un contratto di M&A.

          Presupposto fondamentale, ovviamente, è che la violazione derivi da fatti antecedenti al closing e non noti in quel momento (e, quindi, non evidenziati dalla due diligence effettuata).

          La polizza può essere sottoscritta dal compratore (buyer side) o dal venditore (seller side). Di regola è preferita la prima soluzione. Tali polizze W&I presentano numerosi vantaggi:

          • si ottiene una garanzia a fronte di un venditore non sempre disponibile ad impegnarsi contrattualmente;
          • la polizza generalmente non prevede l’ipotesi di regresso nei confronti del venditore, salvo il caso di dolo, per cui il venditore è integralmente liberato;
          • è possibile ottenere un massimale maggiore di quello previsto nel contratto di compravendita;
          • analogamente, la copertura può essere prevista per un periodo più lungo;
          • si facilitano le relazioni con il venditore, specie nel caso ci siano più venditori ed alcuni di essi restino nella società, magari occupando un posto nel Consiglio d’Amministrazione;
          • si facilita notevolmente il processo d’indennizzo, specie nel caso in cui ci siano più venditori, magari persone fisiche;
          • il compratore riesce ad avere una maggiore certezza di solvibilità.

          Il costo della polizza potrebbe essere condiviso tra le parti, eventualmente con uno sconto del prezzo, che il venditore potrebbe essere disposto a concedere tenuto conto del fatto che non dovrà rilasciare altre garanzie e potrà godere immediatamente dei frutti della vendita.

          Il premio è normalmente compreso tra l’1% ed il 2% del limite d’indennizzo previsto (con un premio minimo).

          Attualmente, i limiti principali di questo strumento paiono essere, oltre al prezzo, che rende lo strumento adatto principalmente ad operazioni di importo non piccolo, la franchigia standard normalmente prevista, pari all’1% dell’Enterprise Value del Target, riducibile allo 0,5% a fronte di un innalzamento del premio. Da tenere presente inoltre che la polizza W&I implica la revisione della due diligence da parte della compagnia, che può tradursi in un intervento attivo nella negoziazione delle garanzie.

          A parte ciò, lo strumento è da considerare attentamente: in presenza di situazioni particolarmente complesse, potrebbe rappresentare la giusta soluzione per sbloccare situazioni di stallo negoziale e rendere più agevoli negoziazioni tra investitori professionali e PMI.

          The procedure to incorporate a foreign owned company in Spain is, in principle, easy and straight forward, however it is necessary to take into account certain new requirements derived from the tax and the anti-money laundering regulations, which could cause long delays in the incorporation process, even to EU and US companies, if they are not well advised and managed from the beginning of the procedure.

          The first step consist in collecting information about the foreign shareholder, in order to be able to prove its legal existence and activities: the foreign shareholder(s) will have to grant before a Notary Public in its country of residence a power of attorney authorising somebody in Spain to obtain its tax identification number (“NIE”), and also represent it before the Spanish notary when signing the deed of incorporation. In case the foreign shareholder is an individual person, the NIE should be applied for before the Spanish police or the Spanish Consulate at the country where the investor lives.

          If the shareholder is a corporation, apart from the Power of Attorney, it will have to obtain a certificate from its Companies’ Registry or Chamber of Commerce, stating its legal existence and main characteristics. This document is called “good standing certificate” (in the UK and US), “K-bis” (in France), “KvK” (in the Netherlands) or “visura” (in Italy). These two documents, the Power of Attorney mentioned in the above paragraph and the certificate from the Companies’ Registry, will have to be Apostilled or legalized by the correspondent Ministry, and Sworn translated into Spanish. Please note that we use to draft bilingual powers of attorney in order to avoid its sworn translation.

          The foreign shareholder will have to prove that its income is obtained from legal activities in order to be able to open a bank account in the name of the new company. The main document to prove this could be the Corporate or the Personal Income Tax return filed in its country of residence, but there could be other means, especially in case of individual persons.

          In case of a corporate shareholder, it will be necessary as well to declare, in principle through a public deed granted in Spain, who are the individual persons who, directly or through other companies, will hold more than a 25% interest in the new company to be incorporated. In case nobody holds more than a 25% (i.e. because there are 5 individual shareholders, holding each of them a 20%), it is declared that the effective control of the new company corresponds to its director.

          At this stage, it is also necessary to mention that the person(s) who will be the director(s) of the new company, in case they are foreigners, will also need to obtain their personal “NIE”. The NIE should be applied for before the Spanish police (this could be done by a proxy duly authorised though a Power of Attorney granted by the foreign director) or before the Spanish Consulate nearest to the city where the investor lives. In order to be a director of a Spanish company it is not necessary to be a shareholder, nor to have residence and work permit in Spain (provided the foreign director does not live in Spain).

          Meanwhile the necessary documents (Powers of Attorney, Companies’ Registry certificate, etc.) are being prepared by the foreign shareholder, the lawyer in Spain will apply for the new company’s name. It is advisable to point out that generic or usual names are not available quite often, therefore it is necessary to think in original names. Three different names could be applied for simultaneously.

          The drafting of the company’s Articles of Association or By Laws could be very quick, except if the company is going to have several shareholders and they wish specific clauses. In this case, it is also advisable to draft a Shareholders Agreement. The Shareholders’ Agreement could just contain some basic rules on dedication, compensation, non-competition, etc. and some more sophisticated rules on the sale of shares (tag along and drag along rights). As regards the By-Laws, they should mention the company’s name, its activity or activities, address in Spain –which cannot be just a P.O. Box-, share capital, number of shares and its face value, and starting date for the fiscal year, among other standard clauses.

          The management of the company could be organized through a sole director, two directors who could act jointly or separately, and in case there are more than three directors, they should organize themselves through a Board of Directors, being usual in this case to appoint a C.E.O. In order to be a director it is not necessary to be a shareholder. Under Spanish laws, the director(s) could be held liable for some company’s debts under certain circumstances which are legally defined. For this reason, it is necessary that the directors formally accept their appointment (personally appearing before the Notary or through a Power of Attorney).

          Before the incorporation, it will be necessary that either the new company’s director (the person to be appointed) or the representative of the corporate shareholder appears personally before the bank where the company will have its first bank account and signs the correspondent documents (KYC regulation). Once the bank account is opened, the shareholder will have to send a bank transfer for the new company’s share capital. In Spain, the minimum share capital for a limited company (S.L.) is Euros 3.000, while for a “Sociedad Anónima” (S.A.) it is Euros 60.000, but only 25% should be paid off at the incorporation moment. It is interesting to note that contributions to the share capital could be made in cash – which is the most common operation, especially at the incorporation – or in kind, with any type of assets: real estate, machinery, goods, trademarks, etc. The money for the share capital should be sent to the new company’s bank account from an account owned by the shareholder (or from each account owned by each shareholder, should they be several ones), not by any other different person. Once the Spanish bank receives the transfer, it will issue a certificate, which is necessary in order to incorporate the company.

          Once all the documents are ready, it is possible within very few days (almost immediately) to make the appointment with the Notary and sign the public deed of incorporation. This can be done at any notary in Spain, not being necessary that the notary practises at the same city where the company will have its corporate address. In order to summarize, the list of the necessary documents is:

          • Power(s) of Attorney granted by the foreign shareholder(s), apostilled and sworn translated.
          • Certificate regarding the legal existence of the foreign shareholder (only if it is a corporation), apostilled and sworn translated.
          • Statement on who are the last individual shareholders holding more than 25% interest in the new company, directly or indirectly (only in case of corporate shareholders).
          • NIE of the foreign shareholder(s).
          • NIE of the new company’s director(s), should they be a foreigners.
          • Certificate for the new company’s name.
          • Articles of Association.
          • Bank certificate regarding the contribution to the new company’s share capital.

          The deed of incorporation is signed by the proxy (or the individual shareholder(s), should they prefer to personally appear before the notary) before the chosen public notary, being also necessary to sign an official form to report the foreign investment to a public registry depending on the Spanish Ministry of Finance.

          Once the deed of incorporation is signed, the next steps consist in applying before the tax authorities to obtain the new company’s tax number (NIF / CIF) and filing the deed of incorporation before the Companies’ Registry. Some banks do allow new companies to operate once they have the NIF (which could be 2-3 days after the incorporation), while others request to wait until the deed of incorporation is filed at the Companies’ Registry (2-3 weeks).

          An estimation of the necessary time to complete all the procedure is 30-45 days, but of course the main delay is related to speed of the foreign investor in obtaining the necessary documents.

          Please note that if you wish to incorporate a foreign owned company in Spain it is always necessary to seek specific professional advice, as each case is different and regulations and the application of such regulations vary from time to time. The above article just explains the main steps and requirements for the incorporation of a company.

          In all M&A operations one of the issues that deserves special attention as regards its analysis, ascertainment and negotiation is the tax liabilities. Even though the parties could agree on the amount of such contingencies, to negotiate the possible guarantees that the seller should grant in order to protect the buyer from a possible claim by the tax authorities, the term during which the guarantees should be in force, and to agree on the communication mechanisms between the parties (buyer and seller) and the legal defense strategies if such claim from the tax authorities arises, requires substantial negotiation efforts.

          When the acquisition operation is formalized not through the purchase of shares, but through the purchase of the assets that form a business unit, the Spanish General Tax Law (“Ley General Tributaria” or “LGT”) provides a mechanism which implies an exception to the general principle provided by article 42 of the same law. Article 42 of LGT establishes the joint liability of the purchaser of a business unit for the tax liabilities of the selling company (“tax liability derived from company’s succession”). That is, in principle, according to article 42 of the LGT “the persons or entities that continue by any mean in the ownership or exercise of economic activities (the buyers) will be jointly liable with the previous owner for the tax liabilities derived from the exercise of such economic activities incurred by such previous owner”.

          However, the joint tax liability of the buyer could be limited through the application before the tax authorities of the tax certificate regulated by article 175.2 of the LGT. This certificate should be applied for by the prospective buyer, with the authorization of the present owner (the seller), and, once issued, the tax liability of the buyer becomes limited to the debts, penalties and liabilities mentioned in the certificate. If the certificate is issued without mentioning any amount, or if the tax authorities do not issue it within a three months term from the application’s date, the applicant (the buyer) will be released from any tax liability derived from company’s succession.

          The tax certificate for succession purposes includes the main taxes, as Value Added Tax and Corporate Income Tax, and can include as well debts derived from the withholding taxes on employees’ payroll, which in case of companies with a big number of employees could be of an outstanding amount. However, the buyer’s joint liability for salaries, related payroll amounts and social security contributions cannot be limited by such certificate, and such liability will always be joint with the business unit seller’s liability.

          The application for the tax certificate should be filed before the acquisition of the business unit is completed, even if the issuance of the certificate takes place later tan the closing date (but of course, it is wiser to not close the acquisition before having the certificate). The certificate’s validity lasts for one year, as regards periodical tax obligations (for example, Value Added Tax, Corporate Income Tax and withholding taxes on salaries) and for three months as regards non periodical tax obligations.

          It is very important to apply for the right tax certificate (“certificate for succession purposes according to article 175.2 of LGT”), and to not make a mistake and apply, for example, for the certificate regarding having fulfilled all tax obligations (“certificado de estar al corriente de las obligaciones fiscales”). Case law is plenty of judgments where a buyer applied for the wrong certificate, which showed no liabilities, and later on such buyer has been sentenced to pay the tax liabilities incurred by the previous owner of the business unit.

          When M&A transactions in Brazil are deemed not successful by the investor the main reason for underperformance is generally the existence of debts or fiscal/labor contingencies materialized higher than evaluated, or unexpected material adverse changes.

          The reasons for overlooking the debts and fiscal/labor contingencies is often the rush to close the investment. Either for avoiding a competitor to acquire the target, or to keep the leading position of the market share, for certain cases, the buyers may have not paid proper attention to what their advisors had to say before closing the deal.

          1. Local legal advisors

          The legal advisors may take, for the perception of the executives eager to complete an acquisition, a bit longer than expected to round up facts and properly report the risks found. The perception for this lower pace to reach out the conclusions may differ from the executives due to the delay of seller to provide documents or clarify questions raised.

          Slowing down a bit to the benefit of certainty is a sound advice.

          Experienced Brazilian advisors shall always be included among the teams. Their knowledge on facing subtle change of applicable laws, rules or predominant court decisions is certainly valuable for better understanding the status of the target and the ways to mitigate risks.

          Certain facts may not seem at first as significant risk for first timers dealing with Brazilian matters. However, the advisors do have a reason to raise the point and should be properly heard. Examples such as absence of one single clear certificate issued by a government department or a missing report on disposal of solid residues, that may not seem a big issue, could turn into a risk of suspension of activities of a plant.

          An audit company is usually hired to identify tax and labor contingencies, but the audit company does not evaluate nor assess the numbers, only the maximum exposure. The legal advisors are in charge of the risk assessment and determination of the estimate of the contingencies. It is up to the buyer to accept and negotiate the relevant coverage for such contingencies.

          Seller may not give full details of all issues of the target at first. It is the role of the advisors to investigate, request further documents and clarification to bring matters that affect the business to buyer’s attention. In a good faith scenario, seller would be willing to discuss the matters, to avoid future disputes or frustrations to buyer.

          1. Debt

          Charges, penalties, interests and other compensations in financial operations turns these contracts full of minor details and very complex in anywhere in the world. Brazilian contracts are not exception. That is the reason why a proper assessment of the financial operations and obtain the real picture of the debt and related costs.

          As usual, attention to change of control provisions are also relevant to mitigate risks – absence of consent or non-compliance of the required steps prior to closing the operation can cause acceleration of the financial operation and trigger cross-default provisions in other contracts that can also lead to acceleration of the financial operations.

          1. Tax/labor contingencies

          Calculation and estimate of tax contingencies are specific for each tax and requires knowledge and a sound judgment to estimate exposure and appoint measures to cover the risks. Same level of care applies to labor-related contingencies.

          Tax and labor matters are usually the most relevant risks to be observed in a Brazilian target. Complexity of regulation and the amount of obligations to fulfill makes these points significant.

          1. Material adverse change

          Material adverse change clauses – “MAC Clauses” – are contractual provisions to mitigate negative effects or a substantial change to the parties. These provisions are admitted in Brazilian law, in view the M&A transaction documents are executed in good faith and respecting the parties’ freedom to commit to certain obligations.

          Needless to say, the MAC Clauses should contain crystal clear language, with objective description of the facts, well defined applicable time period, cause and consequences duly described for proper and easy execution. If not, determination of MAC Clause event shall end on a dispute.

          In the absence of MAC Clauses, Brazilian Civil Code contemplates the ability to any party in a continuous contractual relation to seek for the termination of the contract, by virtue of extraordinary and unpredictable facts, in the event such party is affected with excessive onus and generates extreme advantage to another party. Determination whether the parties were subject to extraordinary and unpredictable facts would depend nevertheless on ruling by a judge or arbitrator, as provided in the acquisition documents.

          1. Guarantees and Indemnification

          For avoidance of future problems, the buyer should obtain strong and prompt executable guarantees. The (a) ability to withhold payments, (b) deposit of part of the purchase price in escrow account with clear rules for withdrawing the escrow amount are most likely measures to ensure a prompt indemnification. From previous experiences, other guarantees like pledge of shares, personal guarantee, lien or even chattel mortgage over real property are harder to execute and indemnify the prejudiced party.

          De minimis clauses (minimum amount for a party to be indemnified – if not reached, the prejudiced party is not going to receive any indemnification) or basket (limitation of indemnifiable amount) are additions to the provisions for guarantees also acceptable for Brazilian M&A transactions.

          The experienced advisors will make a difference to assist on the drafting of these provisions and to reflect what the parties discussed and agreed on the table.

          1. Break-up Fees

          A conscious buyer will certainly avoid the risk of incurring in heavy break-up fees, with proper assessment provided by competent advisors of what may happen until closing. Nevertheless, in certain cases, even after signing a binding document, it might make sense paying a break-up fee even if substantial rather than entering into a risky transaction.

          Recent Brazilian M&A transactions have included break-up fees, applicable in case of the regulatory restrictions are too high or in case the buyer gives up the acquisition. The highest break-up fee known was included in an offer made by Paper Excellence (member of Asia Pulp and Paper, based in Indonesia) was BRL 4 billion (over USD 1 billion or around EUR 900 million). The deal was not closed as another bidder had better credit check (even proposing lower break-up fees).

          In 2015, Ânima paid BRL 46 million (around USD 12.5 million or EUR 10.6 million) of break-up fees to Whitney do Brasil – education sector – for giving up the acquisition due to changes on students’ public financing rules. In 2018, Ultragaz paid BRL 280 million (around USD 75 million or EUR 64 million) in break-up fees to Liquigás, due to the veto by the Brazilian antitrust authority for the operation.

          1. Recommendations

          In this regard, the recommendations to avoid the referred reasons for a not satisfactory failure in M&A transactions in Brazil are:

          • Rely on local advisors: make sure that local Brazilian experts are included in the advisory team – the proper Brazilian legal, accountancy, tax and business experts can provide you with the necessary and valuable information for the proper decision-making process;
          • Listen to what the local advisors have to say: some matters raised may not seem to harm the deal, but it is important to let your advisor give you the full explanation and the reasons why the advisor is concerned about the topic. The advisor has a reason to bring the matters to discussion;
          • On the buy-side, ensure the existence of proper guarantees – feasible and enforceable – for prompt reimbursement of the losses, instead of discussions or long disputes;
          • Be very attentive in the preparation and discussion of the indemnification, procedure for indemnifying a prejudiced party, accommodating the business negotiation and the coverage to the risks explained by the advisors;
          • MAC Clauses shall be clear, precise and objective; and
          • However hard may be, it might make sense paying a break-up fee instead of completing a risky transaction.

          The author of this article is Paulo Yamaguchi

          Mercedes Clavell

          Aree di attività

          • Franchising
          • Immigrazione
          • Commercio internazionale
          • M&A
          • Real estate
          Contatta Mercedes

          Scrivi a Mercedes





            Leggi la privacy policy di Legalmondo.
            Questo sito è protetto da reCAPTCHA e si applicano le Norme sulla privacy e i Termini di servizio di Google.

            Brazil – M&A checklist

            1 Agosto 2018

            • Brasile
            • M&A

            This week the Interim Injunction Judge of the Netherlands Commercial Court ruled in summary proceedings, following a video hearing, in a case on a EUR 169 million transaction where the plaintiff argued that the final transaction had been concluded and the defendant should proceed with the deal.

            This in an – intended – transaction where the letter of intent stipulates that a EUR 30 million break fee is due when no final agreement is signed.

            In addition to ruling on this question of construction of an agreement under Dutch law, the judge also had to rule on the break fee if no agreement was concluded and whether it should be amended or reduced because of the current Coronavirus / Covid-19 crisis.

            English Language proceedings in a Dutch state court, the Netherlands Commercial Court (NCC)

            The case is not just interesting because of the way contract formation is construed under Dutch law and application of concepts of force majeure, unforeseen circumstances and amendment of agreements under the concepts of reasonableness and fairness as well as mitigation of contractual penalties, but also interesting because it was ruled on by a judge of the English language chamber of the Netherlands Commercial Court (NCC).

            This new (2019) Dutch state court offers a relatively fast and cost-effective alternative for international commercial litigation, and in particular arbitration, in a neutral jurisdiction with professional judges selected for both their experience in international disputes and their command of English.

            The dispute regarding the construction of an M&A agreement under Dutch law in an international setting

            The facts are straightforward. Parties (located in New York, USA and the Netherlands) dispute whether final agreement on the EUR 169 million transaction has been reached but do agree a break fee of €30 million in case of non-signature of the final agreement was agreed. However, in addition to claiming there is no final agreement, the defendant also argues that the break fee – due when there is no final agreement – should be reduced or changed due to the coronavirus crisis.

            As to contract formation it must be noted that Dutch law allows broad leeway on how to communicate what may or may not be an offer or acceptance. The standard is what a reasonable person in the same circumstances would have understood their communications to mean.  Here, the critical fact is that the defendant did not sign the so-called “Transaction Agreement”. The letter of intent’s binary mechanism (either execute and deliver the paperwork for the Transaction Agreement by the agreed date or pay a EUR 30 million fee) may not have been an absolute requirement for contract formation (under Dutch law) but has significant evidentiary weight. In M&A practice – also under Dutch law – with which these parties are thoroughly familiar with, this sets a very high bar for  concluding a contract was agreed other than by explicit written agreement. So, parties may generally comfortably rely on what they have agreed on in writing with the assistance of their advisors.

            The communications relied on by claimant in this case did not clear the very high bar to assume that despite the mechanism of the letter of intent and the lack of a signed Transaction Agreement there still was a binding agreement. In particular attributing the other party’s advisers’ statements and/or conduct to the contracting party they represent did not work for the claimant in this case as per the verdict nothing suggested that the advisers would be handling everything, including entering into the agreement.

            Court order for actual performance of a – deemed – agreement on an M&A deal?

            The Interim Injunction Judge finds that there is not a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits so as to justify an interim measure ordering the defendant to actually perform its obligations under the disputed Transaction Agreement (payment of EUR 169 million and take the claimant’s 50% stake in an equestrian show-jumping business).

            Enforcement of the break fee despite “Coronavirus”?

            Failing the conclusion of an agreement, there was still another question to answer as the letter of intent mechanism re the break fee as such was not disputed. Should the Court enforce the full EUR 30 million fee in the current COVID-19 circumstances? Or should the fee’s effects be modified, mitigated or reduced in some way, or  the fee agreement should even be dissolved?

            Unforeseen circumstances, reasonableness and fairness

            The Interim Injunction Judge rules that the coronavirus crisis may be an unforeseen circumstance, but it is not of such a nature that, according to standards of reasonableness and fairness, the plaintiff cannot expect the break fee obligation to remain unchanged. The purpose of the break fee is to encourage parties to enter into the transaction and attribute / share risks between them. As such the fee limits the exposure of the parties. Payment of the fee is a quick way out of the obligation to pay the purchase price of EUR 169 million and the risks of keeping the target company financially afloat. If financially the coronavirus crisis turns out less disastrous than expected, the fee of EUR 30 million may seem high, but that is what the parties already considered reasonable when they waived their right to invoke the unreasonableness of the fee. The claim for payment of the EUR 30 million break fee is therefore upheld by the Interim Injunction Judge.

            Applicable law and the actual practice of it by the courts

            The relevant three articles are in this case articles 6:94, 6:248 and 6:258 of the Dutch Civil Code. They relate to the mitigation of contractual penalties, unforeseen circumstances and amendment of the agreement under the tenets of reasonableness and fairness. Under Dutch law the courts must with all three exercise caution. Contracts must generally be enforced as agreed. The parties’ autonomy is deemed paramount and the courts’ attitude is deferential. All three articles use language stating, essentially, that interference by the courts in the contract’s operation is allowed only to avoid an “unacceptable” impact, as assessed under standards of reasonableness and fairness.

            There is at this moment of course no well- established case law on COVID-19. However, commentators have provided guidance that is very helpful to think through the issues. Recently a “share the pain” approach has been advocated by a renowned law Professor, Tjittes, who focuses on preserving the parties’ contractual equilibrium in the current circumstances. This is, in the Court’s analysis, the right way to look at the agreement here. There is no evidence in the record suggesting that the parties contemplated or discussed the full and exceptional impact of the COVID-19 crisis. The crisis may or may not be unprovided for.  However, the court rules in the current case there is no need to rule on this issue. Even if the crisis is unprovided for, there is no support in the record for the proposition that the crisis makes it unacceptable for the claimant to demand strict performance by the defendant. The reasons are straightforward.

            The break fee allocates risk and expresses commitment and caps exposure. The harm to the business may be substantial and structural, or it may be short-term and minimal. Either way, the best “share the pain” solution, to preserve the contractual equilibrium in the agreement, is for the defendant to pay the fee as written in the letter of intent. This allocates a defined risk to one party, and actual or potential risks to the other party. Reducing the break fee in any business downturn, the fee’s express purpose – comfort and confidence to get the deal done – would not be accomplished and be derived in precisely the circumstances in which it should be robust. As a result, the Court therefore orders to pay the full EUR 30 million fee. So the break fee stipulation works under the circumstances without mitigation because of the Corona outbreak.

            The Netherlands Commercial Court, continued

            As already indicated above, the case is interesting because the verdict has been rendered by a Dutch state court in English and the proceedings where also in English. Not because of a special privilege granted in a specific case but based on an agreement between parties with a proper choice of forum clause for this court. In addition to the benefit to of having an English forum without mandatorily relying on either arbitration or choosing an anglophone court, it also has the benefit of it being a state court with the application of the regular Dutch civil procedure law, which is well known by it’s practitioners and reduces the risk of surprises of a procedural nature.  As it is as such also a “normal” state court, there is the right to appeal and particularly effective under Dutch law access to expedited proceeding as was also the case in the example referred to above. This means a regular procedure with full application of all evidentiary rules may still follow, overturning or confirming this preliminary verdict in summary proceedings.

            Novel technology in proceedings

            Another first or at least a novel application is that all submissions were made in eNCC, a document upload procedure for the NCC. Where the introduction of electronic communication and litigation in the Dutch court system has failed spectacularly, the innovations are now all following in quick order and quite effective. As a consequence of the Coronavirus outbreak several steps have been quickly tried in practice and thereafter formally set up. At present this – finally – includes a secure email-correspondence system between attorneys and the courts.

            And, also by special order of the Court in this present case, given the current COVID-19 restrictions the matter was dealt with at a public videoconference hearing on 22 April 2020 and the case was set for judgment on 29 April 2020 and published on 30 April 2020.

            Even though it is a novel application, it is highly likely that similar arrangements will continue even after expiry of current emergency measures. In several Dutch courts videoconference hearings are applied on a voluntary basis and is expected that the arrangements will be formalized.

            Eligibility of cases for the Netherlands Commercial Court

            Of more general interest are the requirements for matters that may be submitted to NCC:

            • the Amsterdam District Court or Amsterdam Court of Appeal has jurisdiction
            • the parties have expressly agreed in writing that proceedings will be in English before the NCC (the ‘NCC agreement’)
            • the action is a civil or commercial matter within the parties’ autonomy
            • the matter concerns an international dispute.

            The NCC agreement can be recorded in a clause, either before or after the dispute arises. The Court even recommends specific wording:

            “All disputes arising out of or in connection with this agreement will be resolved by the Amsterdam District Court following proceedings in English before the Chamber for International Commercial Matters (“Netherlands Commercial Court” or “NCC District Court”), to the exclusion of the jurisdiction of any other courts. An action for interim measures, including protective measures, available under Dutch law may be brought in the NCC’s Court in Summary Proceedings (CSP) in proceedings in English. Any appeals against NCC or CSP judgments will be submitted to the Amsterdam Court of Appeal’s Chamber for International Commercial Matters (“Netherlands Commercial Court of Appeal” or “NCCA”).”

            The phrase “to the exclusion of the jurisdiction of any other courts” is included in light of the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements. It is not mandatory to include it of course and parties may decide not to exclude the jurisdiction of other courts or make other arrangements they consider appropriate. The only requirement being that such arrangements comply with the rules of jurisdiction and contract. Please note that choice of court agreements are exclusive unless the parties have “expressly provided” or “agreed” otherwise (as per the Hague Convention and Recast Brussels I Regulation).

            Parties in a pending case before another Dutch court or chamber may request that their case be referred to NCC District Court or NCC Court of Appeal. One of the requirements is to agree on a clause that takes the case to the NCC and makes English the language of the proceedings. The NCC recommends using this language:

            We hereby agree that all disputes in connection with the case [name parties], which is currently pending at the *** District Court (case number ***), will be resolved by the Amsterdam District Court following proceedings in English before the Chamber for International Commercial Matters (“Netherlands Commercial Court” or ”NCC District Court). Any action for interim measures, including protective measures, available under Dutch law will be brought in the NCC’s Court in Summary Proceedings (CSP) in proceedings in English. Any appeals against NCC or CSP judgments will be submitted to the Amsterdam Court of Appeal’s Chamber for International Commercial Matters (“Netherlands Commercial Court of Appeal” or “NCC Court of Appeal”).

            To request a referral, a motion must be made before the other chamber or court where the action is pending, stating the request and contesting jurisdiction (if the case is not in Amsterdam) on the basis of a choice-of-court agreement (see before).

            Additional arrangements in the proceedings before the Netherlands Commercial Court

            Before or during the proceedings, parties can also agree special arrangements in a customized NCC clause or in another appropriate manner. Such arrangements may include matters such as the following:

            • the law applicable to the substantive dispute
            • the appointment of a court reporter for preparing records of hearings and the costs of preparing those records
            • an agreement on evidence that departs from the general rules
            • the disclosure of confidential documents
            • the submission of a written witness statement prior to the witness examination
            • the manner of taking witness testimony
            • the costs of the proceedings.

            Visiting lawyers and typical course of the procedure

            All acts of process are in principle carried out by a member of the Dutch Bar. Member of the Bar in an EU or EEA Member State or Switzerland may work in accordance with Article 16e of the Advocates Act (in conjunction with a member of the Dutch Bar). Other visiting lawyers may be allowed to speak at any hearing.

            The proceedings will typically follow the below steps:

            • Submitting the initiating document by the plaintiff (summons or request as per Dutch law)
            • Assigned to three judges and a senior law clerk.
            • The defendant submits its defence statement.
            • Case management conference or motion hearing (e.g. also in respect of preliminary issues such as competence, applicable law etc.) where parties may present their arguments.
            • Judgment on motions: the court rules on the motions. Testimony, expert appointment, either at this stage or earlier or later.
            • The court may allow the parties to submit further written statements.
            • Hearing: the court interviews the parties and allows them to present their arguments. The court may enquire whether the dispute could be resolved amicably and, where appropriate, assist the parties in a settlement process. If appropriate, the court may discuss with the parties whether it would be advisable to submit part or all of the dispute to a mediator. At the end of the hearing, the court will discuss with the parties what the next steps should be.
            • Verdict: this may be a final judgment on the claims or an interim judgment ordering one or more parties to produce evidence, allowing the parties to submit written submissions on certain aspects of the case, appointing one or more experts or taking other steps.

            Continuous updates, online resources Netherlands Commercial Court

            As a final note the English language website of the Netherlands Commercial Court provides ample information on procedure and practical issues and is updated with a high frequence. Under current circumstance even at a higher pace. In particular for practitioners it’s recommended to regularly consult the website. https://www.rechtspraak.nl/English/NCC/Pages/default.aspx

            Le operazioni di acquisizione (M&A) in Italia, nella maggior parte dei casi, vengono realizzate attraverso acquisto di partecipazioni (‘share deal’) o di azienda o ramo d’azienda (‘asset deal’). Per ragioni principalmente fiscali sono più frequenti gli share deal rispetto agli asset deal, nonostante l’asset deal consenta una migliore limitazione dei rischi per l’acquirente. Vedremo le principali differenze tra share deal e asset deal in termini di rischi e di rapporti tra venditore e acquirente.

            Preferenza per operazioni di M&A mediante acquisto di partecipazioni (‘share deal’) rispetto ad acquisto di azienda o ramo d’azienda (‘asset deal’) nel mercato italiano

            In Italia, le operazione di acquisizione (M&A) vengono realizzate, nella maggior parte dei casi, attraverso acquisto di partecipazioni (‘share deal’) o di azienda o ramo d’azienda (‘asset deal’). Altre modalità, come la fusione, sono meno frequenti.

            Con l’acquisto di quote o azioni della società acquisita (‘share deal’) l’acquirente acquisisce, indirettamente, l’intero patrimonio aziendale (attività, passività, rapporti) e quindi si fa carico di tutti i rischi relativi alla precedente gestione della società.

            Con l’acquisto dell’azienda o di un ramo d’azienda (‘asset deal’) l’acquirente acquisisce un insieme di beni e rapporti organizzati per l’esercizio dell’impresa (immobili, impianti, dipendenti, contratti, crediti, debiti, ecc.). Il vantaggio dell’asset deal risiede nella possibilità per le parti di definire il perimetro del trasferimento e, quindi, per l’acquirente, di limitare i rischi legali dell’operazione.

            Nonostante questo vantaggio, la maggior parte delle operazioni di acquisizione in Italia avviene attraverso acquisto di partecipazioni. Nel 2018 gli acquisti di partecipazioni (azioni o quote) sono state circa 78.400, mentre le cessioni di azienda sono state circa 35.900 (fonte: www.notariato.it/it/news/dati-statistici-notarili-anno-2018). E va osservato che il dato delle cessioni d’azienda comprende anche le aziende di piccole o piccolissime dimensioni esercitate da imprenditori individuali, per le quali l’alternativa dello share deal (pur praticabile, attraverso il conferimento dell’azienda in una newco e la cessione delle partecipazioni nella newco) non è percorribile in concreto per ragioni di costo.

            Costi fiscali delle operazioni di acquisizione (M&A) in Italia

            La principale ragione della preferenza per l’acquisto di partecipazione (‘share deal’) rispetto all’acquisto di azienda (‘asset deal’) risiede nei costi fiscali dell’operazione. Vediamo quali sono, in linea generale.

            Nell’acquisto di partecipazioni, le imposte dirette a carico del venditore vengono calcolate sulla plusvalenza, secondo le seguenti percentuali:

            • se il venditore è una società di capitali (s.p.a.; s.r.l.; s.a.p.a.) l’aliquota è del 24% della plusvalenza. Ma, a determinate condizioni, si applica il regime della c.d. PEX (participation exemption) con applicazione dell’aliquota del 24% solo sul 5% della plusvalenza.
            • Se il venditore è una persona fisica l’aliquota sulla plusvalenza è del 26%.
            • Se il venditore è una società di persone (s.s.; s.n.c..; s.a.s.) la plusvalenza è integralmente imponibile, tuttavia al ricorrere di determinate condizioni, l’imponibilità è limitata al 60% dell’ammontare della plusvalenza. In entrambi i casi l’aliquota applicabile è quella marginale riferita a ciascun socio a cui il reddito viene imputato per trasparenza.

            Nell’acquisto di partecipazioni si applica l’imposta di registro, normalmente a carico dell’acquirente, di euro 200.

            Anche nell’acquisto di azienda, le imposte dirette a carico del venditore vengono calcolate sulla plusvalenza. Se il venditore è una società di capitali, l’aliquota è del 24% della plusvalenza. Se il venditore è una società di persone (con soci persone fisiche) o un imprenditore individuale, le aliquote dipendono dal reddito del venditore.

            Nell’acquisto di azienda si applicano le imposte indirette, normalmente a carico dell’acquirente, calcolate sulla parte del prezzo attribuibile ai singoli beni trasferiti. Il prezzo è il risultato delle attività trasferite detratte le passività trasferite. Le percentuali sono diverse a seconda del tipo di beni. In generale:

            • ai beni mobili si applica una imposta di registro del 3%;
            • all’avviamento si applica una imposta di registro del 3%;
            • ai fabbricati si applica una imposta di registro del 9% (e imposte ipotecarie e catastali in misura fissa di euro 50 ciascuna);
            • ai terreni si applica una imposta di registro tra il 9 e il 12% (a seconda dell’acquirente) e imposte ipotecarie e catastali in misura fissa di euro 50 ciascuna.

            Nel caso in cui l’azienda sia composta da beni soggetti ad aliquote diverse e le parti abbiano pattuito un corrispettivo unico, senza distinzione in merito al valore attribuibile ai singoli beni, l’imposta deve calcolarsi applicando all’unico corrispettivo pattuito l’aliquota più elevata.

            Va sottolineato che l’Agenzia delle Entrate può sottoporre ad accertamento il valore attribuito dalle parti ai beni immobili e all’avviamento, con conseguente rischio di applicazione di maggiori imposte.

            Share deal e asset deal: rischi e responsabilità verso i terzi

            Nell’acquisto di quote o azioni (‘share deal’) l’acquirente si fa carico, indirettamente, di tutti i rischi relativi alla precedente gestione della società.

            Nell’acquisto dell’azienda o di un ramo d’azienda (‘asset deal’), invece, le parti possono decidere il perimetro del trasferimento (quali beni e rapporti) così stabilendo, nei rapporti tra loro, i rischi che l’acquirente assume.

            Vi sono però alcune norme, che le parti non possono derogare, relative ai rapporti con i terzi, che influiscono significativamente sui rischi per il venditore e l’acquirente e quindi sulla negoziazione dell’accordo tra le parti. Le principali sono le seguenti.

            • Lavoratori dipendenti: il rapporto di lavoro continua con l’acquirente dell’azienda. Il venditore e l’acquirente sono obbligati in solido per tutti i crediti del lavoratore al momento del trasferimento (art. 2112 c.c.).
            • Debiti: il venditore è obbligato al pagamento di tutti i debiti sino alla data del trasferimento. L’acquirente è obbligato per i debiti che risultano dai libri contabili (art. 2560 c.c.).
            • Debiti e responsabilità fiscali: il venditore è obbligato al pagamento di debiti, imposte e sanzioni fiscali relative al periodo sino alla data del trasferimento.
              L’acquirente, in aggiunta all’obbligo relativo ai debiti fiscali che risultano dai libri contabili (art. 2560 c.c.), è responsabile per le imposte e sanzioni, anche se non risultano dai libri contabili, con i seguenti limiti (art. 14 D.lgs. 472/1997):
            • beneficio della preventiva escussione del venditore;
            • fino al valore dell’azienda o del ramo d’azienda acquistato;
            • per le imposte e sanzioni non ancora contestate, la responsabilità riguarda solo quelle relative all’anno della vendita dell’azienda e ai due precedenti; per le imposte e sanzioni relative al periodo anteriore ai due anni precedenti la vendita dell’azienda, la responsabilità riguarda solo quelle contestate entro tale periodo;
            • nei limiti del debito risultante alla data di trasferimento dagli atti degli uffici dell’amministrazione finanziaria. L’Agenzia delle Entrate è tenuta a rilasciare un certificato sull’esistenza di contestazioni in corso e sui debiti. Il certificato negativo, o non rilasciato entro 40 giorni dalla richiesta, libera l’acquirente da responsabilità.
            • Contratti: le parti possono scegliere quali contratti trasferire. Rispetto ai contratti trasferiti, l’acquirente subentra, anche senza il consenso del terzo contraente, nei contratti per l’esercizio dell’azienda che non hanno carattere personale (sono a carattere personale quelli che prevedono da parte del venditore una prestazione oggettivamente infungibile o soggettivamente infungibile). Inoltre il terzo contraente può recedere dal contratto entro tre mesi, se sussiste una giusta causa (ad esempio se l’acquirente non garantisce, per la propria situazione patrimoniale o per capacità tecniche, di poter adempiere al contratto) (art. 2558 c.c.).

            Alcuni strumenti per affrontare i rischi

            Per affrontare i rischi derivanti dalle responsabilità verso i terzi e i rischi generali connessi all’acquisizione, vi sono diversi strumenti negoziali e contrattuali che possono essere utilizzati. Vediamone alcuni.

            Nelle operazioni di acquisto dell’azienda o di rami d’azienda (‘asset deal’):

            • Lavoratori dipendenti: è possibile concordare con il lavoratore modifiche alle condizioni contrattuali e rinunce alla responsabilità solidale dell’acquirente e del venditore (ex art. 2112 c.c.). L’accordo con i lavoratore per essere valido deve essere concluso in sede ‘protetta’ (ad esempio: con l’assistenza delle organizzazioni sindacali).
            • Debiti:
            • trasferire all’acquirente i debiti riducendo il prezzo in misura corrispondente; la riduzione del prezzo comporta, inoltre, una minor costo fiscale dell’operazione. In caso di trasferimento dei debiti, per tutelare il venditore si può ottenere dal creditore una dichiarazione di liberazione del venditore dalla responsabilità ex art. 2560 c.c.; oppure si può prevedere che il pagamento del debito da parte dell’acquirente avvenga contestualmente al trasferimento dell’azienda (‘closing’).
            • Per i debiti non trasferiti all’acquirente, ottenere dal creditore una dichiarazione di liberazione dell’acquirente dalla responsabilità ex art. 2560 c.c.
            • Per i debiti per i quali non sia possibile ottenere la dichiarazione di liberazione da parte del creditore, pattuire forme di garanzia a favore del venditore (per i debiti trasferiti) o a favore dell’acquirente (per i debiti non trasferiti), quali ad esempio la dilazione del pagamento (a favore dell’acquirente) di parte del prezzo, il deposito fiduciario (‘escrow’) di parte del prezzo, fideiussioni bancarie o da parte dei soci.
            • Debiti e responsabilità fiscali:
            • ottenere dall’Agenzia delle Entrate il certificato ex art. 14 D.lgs. 472/1997 sui debiti e le contestazioni in corso;
            • trasferire all’acquirente i debiti riducendo il prezzo in misura corrispondente;
            • pattuire le forme di garanzia a favore del venditore (per i debiti trasferiti) e a favore dell’acquirente (per i debiti non trasferiti o per le contestazioni che non sono ancora debiti), quali ad esempio quelle sopra esposte per i debiti in generale.
            • Contratti: per quelli che vengono trasferiti:
            • verificare che le prestazioni a carico del venditore sino alla data del trasferimento siano state regolarmente adempiute, per evitare il rischio di contestazioni del terzo contraente che possono bloccare l’esecuzione del contratto;
            • almeno per i contratti più importanti (e salvo ragioni di riservatezza), cercare di ottenere conferma dal terzo contraente del benestare al trasferimento del contratto.

            Nelle operazioni di acquisto di partecipazioni (‘share deal’), in cui l’acquirente si fa carico, indirettamente, di tutti i rischi relativi alla precedente gestione della società, alcuni strumenti sono:

            • Due diligence. Svolgere una approfondita due diligence legale, fiscale e contabile sulla società, per valutare preventivamente i rischi e gestirli nella trattativa e nei contratti.
            • Dichiarazioni e garanzie (‘R&W’) e indennizzo. Prevedere nel contratto di acquisizione (‘share purchase agreement’) un set dettagliato di dichiarazioni e garanzie – e obblighi di indennizzo in caso di non conformità – a carico del venditore relativamente alla situazione della società (‘business warranties’: bilancio; situazione patrimoniale di riferimento; contratti; contenzioso; rispetto della normativa ambientale; autorizzazioni per lo svolgimento dell’attività; debiti; crediti ecc.). La trattativa sulle dichiarazioni e garanzie normalmente recepisce, gestendoli, gli esiti della due diligence (ad esempio: viene escluso dalle dichiarazioni e garanzie e dall’indennizzo un contenzioso emerso in due diligence, del quale le parti tengono conto nella definizione del prezzo). La pattuizione di dichiarazioni e garanzie sulla situazione della società (‘business warranties’) e dell’obbligo di indennizzo sono necessari negli share deal in Italia, in quanto in mancanza di tali clausole l’acquirente non può ottenere dal venditore (salvo situazioni estreme e molto rare) un risarcimento o indennizzo in caso la situazione della società sia diversa da quella considerata al momento dell’acquisto (così ad esempio: Cass. Civ. 16963/2014).
            • Garanzie per l’acquirente. Strumenti per garantire all’acquirente l’effettiva possibilità di ottenere l’indennizzo (o parte dell’indennizzo) in caso di non conformità delle dichiarazioni e garanzie. Tra queste: (a) la dilazione del pagamento di parte del prezzo; (b) il versamento di parte del prezzo in un deposito fiduciario (‘escrow’) per la durata delle dichiarazioni e garanzie e, in caso di contestazioni, fino a che la contestazione non è definita; (c) fideiussione bancaria;; (d) polizza W&I, contratto di assicurazione che copre il rischio dell’acquirente in caso di violazioni di dichiarazioni e garanzie, sino ad un importo massimo (ed esclusi alcuni rischi).

            Altri fattori che incidono sulla scelta tra share deal e asset deal

            Naturalmente la scelta di realizzare un’operazione di acquisizione in Italia mediante share deal o asset deal, dipende anche da altri fattori oltre a quello dei costi fiscali dell’operazione. Eccone alcuni.

            • Acquisto di parte del business. Si sceglie l’asset deal, quando l’operazione non riguarda l’acquisto dell’intera azienda del venditore ma solo una sua parte (un ramo d’azienda).
            • Situazione della società problematica. Si sceglie l’asset deal quando la situazione della società target è così problematica che l’acquirente non è disponibile ad assumere tutti i rischi derivanti dalla precedente gestione, ma solo parte di essi.
            • Mantenimento di un ruolo da parte del venditore. Si sceglie lo share deal quando si vuole conservare al venditore un ruolo nella società acquisita. In questo caso, oltre ad un ruolo nel management, è frequente il mantenimento da parte del venditore di una partecipazione di minoranza, con clausole di exit (diritti di put e call) decorso un certo periodo di tempo. Clausole che, spesso, legano il prezzo ai risultati futuri e, quindi, nell’interesse dell’acquirente incentivano il venditore nel ruolo manageriale e, nell’interesse del venditore, valorizzano prospettive reddituali non concretizzate al momento dell’acquisto.

            Dal 1° agosto 2021 non sarà più necessario, per la costituzione di una SRL – società a responsabilità limitata, recarsi dal notaio: la procedura potrà anche essere realizzata completamente on line, salvo casi eccezionali. Ciò è previsto dalla Direttiva U.E. 2019/1151, che impone agli stati di adeguarsi entro due anni. Vediamo cosa prevede la Direttiva.

            Come si costituisce una S.r.l. in Italia oggi

            In Italia, per costituire una società e, in particolare, una società a responsabilità limitata, è sempre necessario rivolgersi ad un notaio.

            Ciò vale anche per la c.d. «SRL semplificata», introdotta nel 2012 dal Decreto Legge «Liberalizzazioni». In questo caso, infatti, la legge prevede che, a fronte dell’utilizzo di uno statuto standard non modificabile, non vi siano oneri notarili da sostenere. Tuttavia, resta sempre necessario comparire avanti ad un notaio.

            Cosa cambierà da agosto 2021 con il recepimento della Direttiva U.E. 2019/1151

            Le cose dovranno cambiare con l’entrata in vigore della Direttiva U.E. 2019/1151, che modifica la Direttiva U.E. 2017/1132 in tema di uso di strumenti e processi digitali nel diritto societario.

            Entro il 1° agosto 2021, gli Stati membri dovranno aggiornare le procedure per la costituzione di una società in modo da garantire un doppio binario.

            Dovrà, cioè, essere possibile costituire una società sia con il metodo tradizionale, ossia rivolgendosi ad un notaio, oppure con procedure esclusivamente on line.

            Due eccezioni

            • l’art. 13-ter, par. 4, dispone che «ove sia giustificato da motivi di interesse pubblico per impedire l’usurpazione o l’alterazione di identità, gli Stati membri possono adottare misure che potrebbero richiedere la presenza fisica ai fini della verifica dell’identità del richiedente dinanzi a un’autorità o a qualsiasi persona od organismo incaricati… Gli Stati membri provvedono affinché la presenza fisica del richiedente possa essere richiesta solo se vi sono motivi di sospettare una falsificazione dell’identità e garantiscono che qualsiasi altra fase della procedura possa essere completata online»;
            • l’art. 13-octies, co. 8, dispone che «ove giustificato da motivi di interesse pubblici a garantire il rispetto delle norme sulla capacità giuridica e sull’autorità dei richiedenti di rappresentare una società, qualsiasi autorità o qualsiasi persona od organismo incaricato… può chiedere la presenza fisica del richiedente… Gli Stati membri garantiscono che tutte le altre fasi della procedura possano essere comunque completate on line».

            Gli Stati membri dovranno mettere a disposizione i modelli necessari per la costituzione delle società a responsabilità limitata «in almeno una lingua ufficiale dell’Unione ampiamente compresa dal maggior numero possibile di utenti transfrontalieri».

            Rischi

            La direttiva rappresenta, indubbiamente, un interessante tentativo di semplificazione, il cui successo dipenderà, tuttavia, da come verrà recepita dai singoli Stati membri.

            I rischi principali sono almeno due:

            1. il primo, facilmente intuibile, è che gli Stati membri rendano troppo oneroso l’accertamento dell’identità od il potere rappresentativo dei richiedenti, rendendo più semplice, in definitiva, il tradizionale ricorso ad un notaio;
            2. il secondo è che le procedure on line siano poco chiare o comprensibili, specie agli utenti stranieri. In tal senso, non appare sufficiente che i modelli siano resi disponibili, ma sarà necessario che le procedure online siano orientate alla maggiore semplificazione possibile e che i modelli siano tutti disponibili almeno in lingua inglese.

            Infine, è evidente che la digitalizzazione del procedimento di costituzione di una società non elimina l’opportunità di rivolgersi ad un professionista con il compito di consigliare il cliente nelle scelte che sarà necessario fare, ad esempio in materia di corporate governance.

            A legal due diligence of a Brazilian target company should analyze the existence and the content of Agency Agreements, including values paid to the agent and the nature of such payments and the factual situation of the target’s agents, in order to evaluate potential contingencies.

            One usual suspect in legal due diligences of Brazilian target companies in M&A transactions that should not be overlooked is the existence of agency agreements, due to:

            • the obligation to indemnify the agent stipulated by law: at least 1/12th of all commissions paid throughout the entire term of the agency agreement; and
            • the risks for the agency being disregarded and considered as an employment relationship, subjecting the principal to compensate the agent as an employee with all rights, benefits, taxes and social contributions.

            This should be considered for evaluation of potential contingencies and the impacts on the valuation of the target.

            No doubt that agents can be an important component of the sales force of the business and can be strategic for the activity of the principal, in view of a certain independence and for not increasing the payroll of a company.

            On the other hand, under Brazilian laws, the protective nature of the agency demands the principal a considerable level of attention.

            Indemnification

            Brazilian Federal Law No. 4,886/65 as amended – the Brazilian Agency Law – determines that the agent is entitled to, at the termination of an agency agreement, receive an indemnification of 1/12th calculated over all the commissions paid throughout the duration of the entire period of the agency agreement.

            The Brazilian Agency Law stipulates that if the parties sign a new contract within 6 months after the expiration of the previous, the relation between agent and principal shall be deemed as the same relationship and thus, the duration to calculate the indemnification shall encompass the entire period (past and subsequent contract).

            Termination by the agent

            The Brazilian Agency Law also stipulates situations that agent could terminate the contract and still be entitled to receive the 1/12th indemnification:

            • reduction of the activities in disagreement with the contractual stipulation
            • breach of exclusivity (territory and/or products), if so stipulated in the agreement
            • determination of prices that makes the agency unfeasible and
            • default on payment of the commissions
            • force majeure

            Termination without cause

            Termination without cause can be done, upon payment to agent of the indemnification and with a previous notice of at least 30 days, in which situation the agent shall receive the payment of 1/3 of the remuneration received during the previous 90 days prior to the termination.

            Can principal avoid the indemnification?

            The only cases where the 1/12th indemnification would not be applicable are when the contract is terminated by principal with cause. The Brazilian Agency Law has limited situations for principal to terminate the contract with cause:

            • acts by agent causing disrepute of the principal
            • breach of obligations related to the agency activities
            • criminal conviction related to honor, reputation

            These situations shall be clearly demonstrated. Producing the sufficiently strong evidence of the facts to configure cause for termination may not be an easy task, considering some of the facts may be subject to construing and interpreting by the parties, witnesses and ultimately the judge.

            As a result, from past experiences, it is rare to see principals in conditions not to incur in the 1/12th indemnification.

            Potential risk: configuring employment relationship

            In addition to the indemnification, the activities developed by the agent could eventually be deemed as performed by a regular employee of the principal and, in this case, principal could be subject to compensate the agent as an employee.

            Agent vs. employee

            For the appreciation of the employment relationship, the individual acting as agent shall file a labor claim and demonstrate the existence of the employment relationship.

            The Labor Court judge will consider the factual situation, prevailing upon the written agreements or other formal documents. The judge may rely on e-mails, witnesses and other evidence.

            The elements of an employment relationship are:

            • Individual: in case the individual acts by himself to perform the services; Personal services: the services are in fact performed by the individual specifically to the Principal;;
            • Non-eventuality – exclusivity: the services are rendered in a regular basis;
            • Subordination: key factor – the individual has to follow strict instructions directed by principal, such as reporting to an employee of the principal, determined visits;
            • Rewarding – fixed remuneration: the individual is awarded regular amounts and expenses allowances

            In the event the individual can demonstrate the existence of the elements to configure an employment relationship, he/she could have an award to entitle him/her to have his remuneration considered as of a regular employee for the last 5 years.

            As a result, the individual would be awarded the payment of Christmas bonus (equivalent to 1 monthly remuneration per year), vacation allowance (1/3 of a monthly remuneration per year), unemployment guarantee fund (1 monthly remuneration per year) plus other benefits that he/she would be given as an employee of principal (based on the collective bargaining agreement between the employees’ and employers’ unions). The company would also be obliged to make the payment of the co-related social security contributions.

            Needless to say, the result could turn into a considerable potential contingency.

            The author of this article is Paulo Yamaguchi

            Uno dei momenti più delicati di qualsiasi operazione di M&A è sicuramente il momento in cui si affronta il tema delle «garanzie», in particolare con riferimento alla situazione economica, patrimoniale e finanziaria della società o dell’azienda (o di un ramo d’azienda), ovvero le c.d. «business warranties».

            Da un lato, infatti, il compratore vorrebbe «blindare» quanto più possibile il proprio investimento, riducendo al minimo il rischio di sorprese. Al contrario, il venditore vorrebbe contenere il più possibile le garanzie offerte, che spesso si traducono in un limite temporaneo al pieno godimento dei frutti della vendita, di cui magari necessita per effettuare un altro investimento.

            È bene precisare, innanzi tutto, che con il termine «garanzie» si fa normalmente riferimento, in modo atecnico, ad un articolato set di previsioni contrattuali contenenti:

            • le dichiarazioni del venditore circa lo stato di salute della società o dell’azienda (o del ramo d’azienda) ceduta;
            • gli obblighi d’indennizzo assunti dal venditore in caso di «violazione» (ossia non corrispondenza al vero) delle dichiarazioni rese;
            • gli strumenti previsti al fine di assicurare l’effettività degli obblighi d’indennizzo assunti.

            Vi sono diverse ragioni per cui tale set è necessario, ma la principale è che nei contratti di M&A non trovano applicazione le garanzie civilistiche sulle vendita se non limitatamente al bene venduto, pertanto, se il bene venduto sono le partecipazioni, le garanzie non coprono gli asset sottostanti della società, e, nei casi eccezionali in cui trovano applicazione, i termini brevi e le limitazioni stringenti rendono, comunque, opportuna l’assunzione di obbligazioni accessorie volte a garantire il buon esito economico dell’operazione.

            Ciò è confermato dalla pratica: nelle operazioni di M&A non vi è contratto che non includa il set delle garanzie.

            Le dichiarazioni, in particolare, recepiscono normalmente la due diligence svolta dal compratore, preceduta, a sua volta, da un non disclosure agreement (NDA), finalizzato a tutelare le informazioni messe a disposizione.

            Eventuali criticità che dovessero emergere dovranno essere adeguatamente riportate. Ovviamente, non è detto che un’eventuale criticità, laddove si concretizzi, debba necessariamente far scattare un obbligo d’indennizzo. Spetterà alle parti regolamentare tale aspetto, potendo anche prevedere che il relativo rischio resti a carico del compratore, magari a fronte di una riduzione del prezzo.

            In merito all’obbligo d’indennizzo dovranno poi essere attentamente negoziati alcuni aspetti. I principali sono sicuramente:

            • la durata (es. maggiore per le garanzie fiscali);
            • a chi spetta l’eventuale indennizzo (al compratore o alla società; all’uno o all’altra a seconda dei casi);
            • eventuali detrazioni e /o limitazioni (es. perdite fiscali);
            • l’importo massimo indennizzabile;
            • un’eventuale franchigia;
            • la procedura d’indennizzo (es. termini per la richiesta, procedura di composizione, situazioni particolari, etc.).

            Si tratta di aspetti importantissimi, che non devono essere sottovalutati. È chiaro, ad esempio, che non disciplinare adeguatamente la procedura d’indennizzo rischia di vanificare tutto il lavoro fatto prima.

            Infine, dovranno essere previsti strumenti idonei al fine di assicurare la tutela effettiva del compratore. Tra questi, quelli più tradizionali sono:

            • la fideiussione;
            • il contratto autonomo di garanzia;
            • il deposito fiduciario («escrow»);
            • la dilazione di pagamento;
            • il meccanismo di «earn out»;
            • il c.d. «price adjustment»;
            • la lettera di patronage;
            • il pegno e/o l’ipoteca.

            Si tratta di strumenti tutti più o meno largamente utilizzati nella pratica, che presentano ciascuno dei pro e dei contro.

            Qui, tuttavia, vogliamo occuparci di un nuovo strumento di natura assicurativa, a cui si sta cominciando a fare ricorso negli ultimi tempi: le c.d. «Polizze Warranty & Indemnity».

            Con una polizza W&I, in pratica, l’assicuratore, a fronte del pagamento di un premio, assume su di sé il rischio derivante dalla violazione delle dichiarazioni contenute in un contratto di M&A.

            Presupposto fondamentale, ovviamente, è che la violazione derivi da fatti antecedenti al closing e non noti in quel momento (e, quindi, non evidenziati dalla due diligence effettuata).

            La polizza può essere sottoscritta dal compratore (buyer side) o dal venditore (seller side). Di regola è preferita la prima soluzione. Tali polizze W&I presentano numerosi vantaggi:

            • si ottiene una garanzia a fronte di un venditore non sempre disponibile ad impegnarsi contrattualmente;
            • la polizza generalmente non prevede l’ipotesi di regresso nei confronti del venditore, salvo il caso di dolo, per cui il venditore è integralmente liberato;
            • è possibile ottenere un massimale maggiore di quello previsto nel contratto di compravendita;
            • analogamente, la copertura può essere prevista per un periodo più lungo;
            • si facilitano le relazioni con il venditore, specie nel caso ci siano più venditori ed alcuni di essi restino nella società, magari occupando un posto nel Consiglio d’Amministrazione;
            • si facilita notevolmente il processo d’indennizzo, specie nel caso in cui ci siano più venditori, magari persone fisiche;
            • il compratore riesce ad avere una maggiore certezza di solvibilità.

            Il costo della polizza potrebbe essere condiviso tra le parti, eventualmente con uno sconto del prezzo, che il venditore potrebbe essere disposto a concedere tenuto conto del fatto che non dovrà rilasciare altre garanzie e potrà godere immediatamente dei frutti della vendita.

            Il premio è normalmente compreso tra l’1% ed il 2% del limite d’indennizzo previsto (con un premio minimo).

            Attualmente, i limiti principali di questo strumento paiono essere, oltre al prezzo, che rende lo strumento adatto principalmente ad operazioni di importo non piccolo, la franchigia standard normalmente prevista, pari all’1% dell’Enterprise Value del Target, riducibile allo 0,5% a fronte di un innalzamento del premio. Da tenere presente inoltre che la polizza W&I implica la revisione della due diligence da parte della compagnia, che può tradursi in un intervento attivo nella negoziazione delle garanzie.

            A parte ciò, lo strumento è da considerare attentamente: in presenza di situazioni particolarmente complesse, potrebbe rappresentare la giusta soluzione per sbloccare situazioni di stallo negoziale e rendere più agevoli negoziazioni tra investitori professionali e PMI.

            The procedure to incorporate a foreign owned company in Spain is, in principle, easy and straight forward, however it is necessary to take into account certain new requirements derived from the tax and the anti-money laundering regulations, which could cause long delays in the incorporation process, even to EU and US companies, if they are not well advised and managed from the beginning of the procedure.

            The first step consist in collecting information about the foreign shareholder, in order to be able to prove its legal existence and activities: the foreign shareholder(s) will have to grant before a Notary Public in its country of residence a power of attorney authorising somebody in Spain to obtain its tax identification number (“NIE”), and also represent it before the Spanish notary when signing the deed of incorporation. In case the foreign shareholder is an individual person, the NIE should be applied for before the Spanish police or the Spanish Consulate at the country where the investor lives.

            If the shareholder is a corporation, apart from the Power of Attorney, it will have to obtain a certificate from its Companies’ Registry or Chamber of Commerce, stating its legal existence and main characteristics. This document is called “good standing certificate” (in the UK and US), “K-bis” (in France), “KvK” (in the Netherlands) or “visura” (in Italy). These two documents, the Power of Attorney mentioned in the above paragraph and the certificate from the Companies’ Registry, will have to be Apostilled or legalized by the correspondent Ministry, and Sworn translated into Spanish. Please note that we use to draft bilingual powers of attorney in order to avoid its sworn translation.

            The foreign shareholder will have to prove that its income is obtained from legal activities in order to be able to open a bank account in the name of the new company. The main document to prove this could be the Corporate or the Personal Income Tax return filed in its country of residence, but there could be other means, especially in case of individual persons.

            In case of a corporate shareholder, it will be necessary as well to declare, in principle through a public deed granted in Spain, who are the individual persons who, directly or through other companies, will hold more than a 25% interest in the new company to be incorporated. In case nobody holds more than a 25% (i.e. because there are 5 individual shareholders, holding each of them a 20%), it is declared that the effective control of the new company corresponds to its director.

            At this stage, it is also necessary to mention that the person(s) who will be the director(s) of the new company, in case they are foreigners, will also need to obtain their personal “NIE”. The NIE should be applied for before the Spanish police (this could be done by a proxy duly authorised though a Power of Attorney granted by the foreign director) or before the Spanish Consulate nearest to the city where the investor lives. In order to be a director of a Spanish company it is not necessary to be a shareholder, nor to have residence and work permit in Spain (provided the foreign director does not live in Spain).

            Meanwhile the necessary documents (Powers of Attorney, Companies’ Registry certificate, etc.) are being prepared by the foreign shareholder, the lawyer in Spain will apply for the new company’s name. It is advisable to point out that generic or usual names are not available quite often, therefore it is necessary to think in original names. Three different names could be applied for simultaneously.

            The drafting of the company’s Articles of Association or By Laws could be very quick, except if the company is going to have several shareholders and they wish specific clauses. In this case, it is also advisable to draft a Shareholders Agreement. The Shareholders’ Agreement could just contain some basic rules on dedication, compensation, non-competition, etc. and some more sophisticated rules on the sale of shares (tag along and drag along rights). As regards the By-Laws, they should mention the company’s name, its activity or activities, address in Spain –which cannot be just a P.O. Box-, share capital, number of shares and its face value, and starting date for the fiscal year, among other standard clauses.

            The management of the company could be organized through a sole director, two directors who could act jointly or separately, and in case there are more than three directors, they should organize themselves through a Board of Directors, being usual in this case to appoint a C.E.O. In order to be a director it is not necessary to be a shareholder. Under Spanish laws, the director(s) could be held liable for some company’s debts under certain circumstances which are legally defined. For this reason, it is necessary that the directors formally accept their appointment (personally appearing before the Notary or through a Power of Attorney).

            Before the incorporation, it will be necessary that either the new company’s director (the person to be appointed) or the representative of the corporate shareholder appears personally before the bank where the company will have its first bank account and signs the correspondent documents (KYC regulation). Once the bank account is opened, the shareholder will have to send a bank transfer for the new company’s share capital. In Spain, the minimum share capital for a limited company (S.L.) is Euros 3.000, while for a “Sociedad Anónima” (S.A.) it is Euros 60.000, but only 25% should be paid off at the incorporation moment. It is interesting to note that contributions to the share capital could be made in cash – which is the most common operation, especially at the incorporation – or in kind, with any type of assets: real estate, machinery, goods, trademarks, etc. The money for the share capital should be sent to the new company’s bank account from an account owned by the shareholder (or from each account owned by each shareholder, should they be several ones), not by any other different person. Once the Spanish bank receives the transfer, it will issue a certificate, which is necessary in order to incorporate the company.

            Once all the documents are ready, it is possible within very few days (almost immediately) to make the appointment with the Notary and sign the public deed of incorporation. This can be done at any notary in Spain, not being necessary that the notary practises at the same city where the company will have its corporate address. In order to summarize, the list of the necessary documents is:

            • Power(s) of Attorney granted by the foreign shareholder(s), apostilled and sworn translated.
            • Certificate regarding the legal existence of the foreign shareholder (only if it is a corporation), apostilled and sworn translated.
            • Statement on who are the last individual shareholders holding more than 25% interest in the new company, directly or indirectly (only in case of corporate shareholders).
            • NIE of the foreign shareholder(s).
            • NIE of the new company’s director(s), should they be a foreigners.
            • Certificate for the new company’s name.
            • Articles of Association.
            • Bank certificate regarding the contribution to the new company’s share capital.

            The deed of incorporation is signed by the proxy (or the individual shareholder(s), should they prefer to personally appear before the notary) before the chosen public notary, being also necessary to sign an official form to report the foreign investment to a public registry depending on the Spanish Ministry of Finance.

            Once the deed of incorporation is signed, the next steps consist in applying before the tax authorities to obtain the new company’s tax number (NIF / CIF) and filing the deed of incorporation before the Companies’ Registry. Some banks do allow new companies to operate once they have the NIF (which could be 2-3 days after the incorporation), while others request to wait until the deed of incorporation is filed at the Companies’ Registry (2-3 weeks).

            An estimation of the necessary time to complete all the procedure is 30-45 days, but of course the main delay is related to speed of the foreign investor in obtaining the necessary documents.

            Please note that if you wish to incorporate a foreign owned company in Spain it is always necessary to seek specific professional advice, as each case is different and regulations and the application of such regulations vary from time to time. The above article just explains the main steps and requirements for the incorporation of a company.

            In all M&A operations one of the issues that deserves special attention as regards its analysis, ascertainment and negotiation is the tax liabilities. Even though the parties could agree on the amount of such contingencies, to negotiate the possible guarantees that the seller should grant in order to protect the buyer from a possible claim by the tax authorities, the term during which the guarantees should be in force, and to agree on the communication mechanisms between the parties (buyer and seller) and the legal defense strategies if such claim from the tax authorities arises, requires substantial negotiation efforts.

            When the acquisition operation is formalized not through the purchase of shares, but through the purchase of the assets that form a business unit, the Spanish General Tax Law (“Ley General Tributaria” or “LGT”) provides a mechanism which implies an exception to the general principle provided by article 42 of the same law. Article 42 of LGT establishes the joint liability of the purchaser of a business unit for the tax liabilities of the selling company (“tax liability derived from company’s succession”). That is, in principle, according to article 42 of the LGT “the persons or entities that continue by any mean in the ownership or exercise of economic activities (the buyers) will be jointly liable with the previous owner for the tax liabilities derived from the exercise of such economic activities incurred by such previous owner”.

            However, the joint tax liability of the buyer could be limited through the application before the tax authorities of the tax certificate regulated by article 175.2 of the LGT. This certificate should be applied for by the prospective buyer, with the authorization of the present owner (the seller), and, once issued, the tax liability of the buyer becomes limited to the debts, penalties and liabilities mentioned in the certificate. If the certificate is issued without mentioning any amount, or if the tax authorities do not issue it within a three months term from the application’s date, the applicant (the buyer) will be released from any tax liability derived from company’s succession.

            The tax certificate for succession purposes includes the main taxes, as Value Added Tax and Corporate Income Tax, and can include as well debts derived from the withholding taxes on employees’ payroll, which in case of companies with a big number of employees could be of an outstanding amount. However, the buyer’s joint liability for salaries, related payroll amounts and social security contributions cannot be limited by such certificate, and such liability will always be joint with the business unit seller’s liability.

            The application for the tax certificate should be filed before the acquisition of the business unit is completed, even if the issuance of the certificate takes place later tan the closing date (but of course, it is wiser to not close the acquisition before having the certificate). The certificate’s validity lasts for one year, as regards periodical tax obligations (for example, Value Added Tax, Corporate Income Tax and withholding taxes on salaries) and for three months as regards non periodical tax obligations.

            It is very important to apply for the right tax certificate (“certificate for succession purposes according to article 175.2 of LGT”), and to not make a mistake and apply, for example, for the certificate regarding having fulfilled all tax obligations (“certificado de estar al corriente de las obligaciones fiscales”). Case law is plenty of judgments where a buyer applied for the wrong certificate, which showed no liabilities, and later on such buyer has been sentenced to pay the tax liabilities incurred by the previous owner of the business unit.

            When M&A transactions in Brazil are deemed not successful by the investor the main reason for underperformance is generally the existence of debts or fiscal/labor contingencies materialized higher than evaluated, or unexpected material adverse changes.

            The reasons for overlooking the debts and fiscal/labor contingencies is often the rush to close the investment. Either for avoiding a competitor to acquire the target, or to keep the leading position of the market share, for certain cases, the buyers may have not paid proper attention to what their advisors had to say before closing the deal.

            1. Local legal advisors

            The legal advisors may take, for the perception of the executives eager to complete an acquisition, a bit longer than expected to round up facts and properly report the risks found. The perception for this lower pace to reach out the conclusions may differ from the executives due to the delay of seller to provide documents or clarify questions raised.

            Slowing down a bit to the benefit of certainty is a sound advice.

            Experienced Brazilian advisors shall always be included among the teams. Their knowledge on facing subtle change of applicable laws, rules or predominant court decisions is certainly valuable for better understanding the status of the target and the ways to mitigate risks.

            Certain facts may not seem at first as significant risk for first timers dealing with Brazilian matters. However, the advisors do have a reason to raise the point and should be properly heard. Examples such as absence of one single clear certificate issued by a government department or a missing report on disposal of solid residues, that may not seem a big issue, could turn into a risk of suspension of activities of a plant.

            An audit company is usually hired to identify tax and labor contingencies, but the audit company does not evaluate nor assess the numbers, only the maximum exposure. The legal advisors are in charge of the risk assessment and determination of the estimate of the contingencies. It is up to the buyer to accept and negotiate the relevant coverage for such contingencies.

            Seller may not give full details of all issues of the target at first. It is the role of the advisors to investigate, request further documents and clarification to bring matters that affect the business to buyer’s attention. In a good faith scenario, seller would be willing to discuss the matters, to avoid future disputes or frustrations to buyer.

            1. Debt

            Charges, penalties, interests and other compensations in financial operations turns these contracts full of minor details and very complex in anywhere in the world. Brazilian contracts are not exception. That is the reason why a proper assessment of the financial operations and obtain the real picture of the debt and related costs.

            As usual, attention to change of control provisions are also relevant to mitigate risks – absence of consent or non-compliance of the required steps prior to closing the operation can cause acceleration of the financial operation and trigger cross-default provisions in other contracts that can also lead to acceleration of the financial operations.

            1. Tax/labor contingencies

            Calculation and estimate of tax contingencies are specific for each tax and requires knowledge and a sound judgment to estimate exposure and appoint measures to cover the risks. Same level of care applies to labor-related contingencies.

            Tax and labor matters are usually the most relevant risks to be observed in a Brazilian target. Complexity of regulation and the amount of obligations to fulfill makes these points significant.

            1. Material adverse change

            Material adverse change clauses – “MAC Clauses” – are contractual provisions to mitigate negative effects or a substantial change to the parties. These provisions are admitted in Brazilian law, in view the M&A transaction documents are executed in good faith and respecting the parties’ freedom to commit to certain obligations.

            Needless to say, the MAC Clauses should contain crystal clear language, with objective description of the facts, well defined applicable time period, cause and consequences duly described for proper and easy execution. If not, determination of MAC Clause event shall end on a dispute.

            In the absence of MAC Clauses, Brazilian Civil Code contemplates the ability to any party in a continuous contractual relation to seek for the termination of the contract, by virtue of extraordinary and unpredictable facts, in the event such party is affected with excessive onus and generates extreme advantage to another party. Determination whether the parties were subject to extraordinary and unpredictable facts would depend nevertheless on ruling by a judge or arbitrator, as provided in the acquisition documents.

            1. Guarantees and Indemnification

            For avoidance of future problems, the buyer should obtain strong and prompt executable guarantees. The (a) ability to withhold payments, (b) deposit of part of the purchase price in escrow account with clear rules for withdrawing the escrow amount are most likely measures to ensure a prompt indemnification. From previous experiences, other guarantees like pledge of shares, personal guarantee, lien or even chattel mortgage over real property are harder to execute and indemnify the prejudiced party.

            De minimis clauses (minimum amount for a party to be indemnified – if not reached, the prejudiced party is not going to receive any indemnification) or basket (limitation of indemnifiable amount) are additions to the provisions for guarantees also acceptable for Brazilian M&A transactions.

            The experienced advisors will make a difference to assist on the drafting of these provisions and to reflect what the parties discussed and agreed on the table.

            1. Break-up Fees

            A conscious buyer will certainly avoid the risk of incurring in heavy break-up fees, with proper assessment provided by competent advisors of what may happen until closing. Nevertheless, in certain cases, even after signing a binding document, it might make sense paying a break-up fee even if substantial rather than entering into a risky transaction.

            Recent Brazilian M&A transactions have included break-up fees, applicable in case of the regulatory restrictions are too high or in case the buyer gives up the acquisition. The highest break-up fee known was included in an offer made by Paper Excellence (member of Asia Pulp and Paper, based in Indonesia) was BRL 4 billion (over USD 1 billion or around EUR 900 million). The deal was not closed as another bidder had better credit check (even proposing lower break-up fees).

            In 2015, Ânima paid BRL 46 million (around USD 12.5 million or EUR 10.6 million) of break-up fees to Whitney do Brasil – education sector – for giving up the acquisition due to changes on students’ public financing rules. In 2018, Ultragaz paid BRL 280 million (around USD 75 million or EUR 64 million) in break-up fees to Liquigás, due to the veto by the Brazilian antitrust authority for the operation.

            1. Recommendations

            In this regard, the recommendations to avoid the referred reasons for a not satisfactory failure in M&A transactions in Brazil are:

            • Rely on local advisors: make sure that local Brazilian experts are included in the advisory team – the proper Brazilian legal, accountancy, tax and business experts can provide you with the necessary and valuable information for the proper decision-making process;
            • Listen to what the local advisors have to say: some matters raised may not seem to harm the deal, but it is important to let your advisor give you the full explanation and the reasons why the advisor is concerned about the topic. The advisor has a reason to bring the matters to discussion;
            • On the buy-side, ensure the existence of proper guarantees – feasible and enforceable – for prompt reimbursement of the losses, instead of discussions or long disputes;
            • Be very attentive in the preparation and discussion of the indemnification, procedure for indemnifying a prejudiced party, accommodating the business negotiation and the coverage to the risks explained by the advisors;
            • MAC Clauses shall be clear, precise and objective; and
            • However hard may be, it might make sense paying a break-up fee instead of completing a risky transaction.

            The author of this article is Paulo Yamaguchi

            China – Know your investor

            6 Marzo 2017

            • Cina
            • Diritto societario
            • M&A

            This week the Interim Injunction Judge of the Netherlands Commercial Court ruled in summary proceedings, following a video hearing, in a case on a EUR 169 million transaction where the plaintiff argued that the final transaction had been concluded and the defendant should proceed with the deal.

            This in an – intended – transaction where the letter of intent stipulates that a EUR 30 million break fee is due when no final agreement is signed.

            In addition to ruling on this question of construction of an agreement under Dutch law, the judge also had to rule on the break fee if no agreement was concluded and whether it should be amended or reduced because of the current Coronavirus / Covid-19 crisis.

            English Language proceedings in a Dutch state court, the Netherlands Commercial Court (NCC)

            The case is not just interesting because of the way contract formation is construed under Dutch law and application of concepts of force majeure, unforeseen circumstances and amendment of agreements under the concepts of reasonableness and fairness as well as mitigation of contractual penalties, but also interesting because it was ruled on by a judge of the English language chamber of the Netherlands Commercial Court (NCC).

            This new (2019) Dutch state court offers a relatively fast and cost-effective alternative for international commercial litigation, and in particular arbitration, in a neutral jurisdiction with professional judges selected for both their experience in international disputes and their command of English.

            The dispute regarding the construction of an M&A agreement under Dutch law in an international setting

            The facts are straightforward. Parties (located in New York, USA and the Netherlands) dispute whether final agreement on the EUR 169 million transaction has been reached but do agree a break fee of €30 million in case of non-signature of the final agreement was agreed. However, in addition to claiming there is no final agreement, the defendant also argues that the break fee – due when there is no final agreement – should be reduced or changed due to the coronavirus crisis.

            As to contract formation it must be noted that Dutch law allows broad leeway on how to communicate what may or may not be an offer or acceptance. The standard is what a reasonable person in the same circumstances would have understood their communications to mean.  Here, the critical fact is that the defendant did not sign the so-called “Transaction Agreement”. The letter of intent’s binary mechanism (either execute and deliver the paperwork for the Transaction Agreement by the agreed date or pay a EUR 30 million fee) may not have been an absolute requirement for contract formation (under Dutch law) but has significant evidentiary weight. In M&A practice – also under Dutch law – with which these parties are thoroughly familiar with, this sets a very high bar for  concluding a contract was agreed other than by explicit written agreement. So, parties may generally comfortably rely on what they have agreed on in writing with the assistance of their advisors.

            The communications relied on by claimant in this case did not clear the very high bar to assume that despite the mechanism of the letter of intent and the lack of a signed Transaction Agreement there still was a binding agreement. In particular attributing the other party’s advisers’ statements and/or conduct to the contracting party they represent did not work for the claimant in this case as per the verdict nothing suggested that the advisers would be handling everything, including entering into the agreement.

            Court order for actual performance of a – deemed – agreement on an M&A deal?

            The Interim Injunction Judge finds that there is not a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits so as to justify an interim measure ordering the defendant to actually perform its obligations under the disputed Transaction Agreement (payment of EUR 169 million and take the claimant’s 50% stake in an equestrian show-jumping business).

            Enforcement of the break fee despite “Coronavirus”?

            Failing the conclusion of an agreement, there was still another question to answer as the letter of intent mechanism re the break fee as such was not disputed. Should the Court enforce the full EUR 30 million fee in the current COVID-19 circumstances? Or should the fee’s effects be modified, mitigated or reduced in some way, or  the fee agreement should even be dissolved?

            Unforeseen circumstances, reasonableness and fairness

            The Interim Injunction Judge rules that the coronavirus crisis may be an unforeseen circumstance, but it is not of such a nature that, according to standards of reasonableness and fairness, the plaintiff cannot expect the break fee obligation to remain unchanged. The purpose of the break fee is to encourage parties to enter into the transaction and attribute / share risks between them. As such the fee limits the exposure of the parties. Payment of the fee is a quick way out of the obligation to pay the purchase price of EUR 169 million and the risks of keeping the target company financially afloat. If financially the coronavirus crisis turns out less disastrous than expected, the fee of EUR 30 million may seem high, but that is what the parties already considered reasonable when they waived their right to invoke the unreasonableness of the fee. The claim for payment of the EUR 30 million break fee is therefore upheld by the Interim Injunction Judge.

            Applicable law and the actual practice of it by the courts

            The relevant three articles are in this case articles 6:94, 6:248 and 6:258 of the Dutch Civil Code. They relate to the mitigation of contractual penalties, unforeseen circumstances and amendment of the agreement under the tenets of reasonableness and fairness. Under Dutch law the courts must with all three exercise caution. Contracts must generally be enforced as agreed. The parties’ autonomy is deemed paramount and the courts’ attitude is deferential. All three articles use language stating, essentially, that interference by the courts in the contract’s operation is allowed only to avoid an “unacceptable” impact, as assessed under standards of reasonableness and fairness.

            There is at this moment of course no well- established case law on COVID-19. However, commentators have provided guidance that is very helpful to think through the issues. Recently a “share the pain” approach has been advocated by a renowned law Professor, Tjittes, who focuses on preserving the parties’ contractual equilibrium in the current circumstances. This is, in the Court’s analysis, the right way to look at the agreement here. There is no evidence in the record suggesting that the parties contemplated or discussed the full and exceptional impact of the COVID-19 crisis. The crisis may or may not be unprovided for.  However, the court rules in the current case there is no need to rule on this issue. Even if the crisis is unprovided for, there is no support in the record for the proposition that the crisis makes it unacceptable for the claimant to demand strict performance by the defendant. The reasons are straightforward.

            The break fee allocates risk and expresses commitment and caps exposure. The harm to the business may be substantial and structural, or it may be short-term and minimal. Either way, the best “share the pain” solution, to preserve the contractual equilibrium in the agreement, is for the defendant to pay the fee as written in the letter of intent. This allocates a defined risk to one party, and actual or potential risks to the other party. Reducing the break fee in any business downturn, the fee’s express purpose – comfort and confidence to get the deal done – would not be accomplished and be derived in precisely the circumstances in which it should be robust. As a result, the Court therefore orders to pay the full EUR 30 million fee. So the break fee stipulation works under the circumstances without mitigation because of the Corona outbreak.

            The Netherlands Commercial Court, continued

            As already indicated above, the case is interesting because the verdict has been rendered by a Dutch state court in English and the proceedings where also in English. Not because of a special privilege granted in a specific case but based on an agreement between parties with a proper choice of forum clause for this court. In addition to the benefit to of having an English forum without mandatorily relying on either arbitration or choosing an anglophone court, it also has the benefit of it being a state court with the application of the regular Dutch civil procedure law, which is well known by it’s practitioners and reduces the risk of surprises of a procedural nature.  As it is as such also a “normal” state court, there is the right to appeal and particularly effective under Dutch law access to expedited proceeding as was also the case in the example referred to above. This means a regular procedure with full application of all evidentiary rules may still follow, overturning or confirming this preliminary verdict in summary proceedings.

            Novel technology in proceedings

            Another first or at least a novel application is that all submissions were made in eNCC, a document upload procedure for the NCC. Where the introduction of electronic communication and litigation in the Dutch court system has failed spectacularly, the innovations are now all following in quick order and quite effective. As a consequence of the Coronavirus outbreak several steps have been quickly tried in practice and thereafter formally set up. At present this – finally – includes a secure email-correspondence system between attorneys and the courts.

            And, also by special order of the Court in this present case, given the current COVID-19 restrictions the matter was dealt with at a public videoconference hearing on 22 April 2020 and the case was set for judgment on 29 April 2020 and published on 30 April 2020.

            Even though it is a novel application, it is highly likely that similar arrangements will continue even after expiry of current emergency measures. In several Dutch courts videoconference hearings are applied on a voluntary basis and is expected that the arrangements will be formalized.

            Eligibility of cases for the Netherlands Commercial Court

            Of more general interest are the requirements for matters that may be submitted to NCC:

            • the Amsterdam District Court or Amsterdam Court of Appeal has jurisdiction
            • the parties have expressly agreed in writing that proceedings will be in English before the NCC (the ‘NCC agreement’)
            • the action is a civil or commercial matter within the parties’ autonomy
            • the matter concerns an international dispute.

            The NCC agreement can be recorded in a clause, either before or after the dispute arises. The Court even recommends specific wording:

            “All disputes arising out of or in connection with this agreement will be resolved by the Amsterdam District Court following proceedings in English before the Chamber for International Commercial Matters (“Netherlands Commercial Court” or “NCC District Court”), to the exclusion of the jurisdiction of any other courts. An action for interim measures, including protective measures, available under Dutch law may be brought in the NCC’s Court in Summary Proceedings (CSP) in proceedings in English. Any appeals against NCC or CSP judgments will be submitted to the Amsterdam Court of Appeal’s Chamber for International Commercial Matters (“Netherlands Commercial Court of Appeal” or “NCCA”).”

            The phrase “to the exclusion of the jurisdiction of any other courts” is included in light of the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements. It is not mandatory to include it of course and parties may decide not to exclude the jurisdiction of other courts or make other arrangements they consider appropriate. The only requirement being that such arrangements comply with the rules of jurisdiction and contract. Please note that choice of court agreements are exclusive unless the parties have “expressly provided” or “agreed” otherwise (as per the Hague Convention and Recast Brussels I Regulation).

            Parties in a pending case before another Dutch court or chamber may request that their case be referred to NCC District Court or NCC Court of Appeal. One of the requirements is to agree on a clause that takes the case to the NCC and makes English the language of the proceedings. The NCC recommends using this language:

            We hereby agree that all disputes in connection with the case [name parties], which is currently pending at the *** District Court (case number ***), will be resolved by the Amsterdam District Court following proceedings in English before the Chamber for International Commercial Matters (“Netherlands Commercial Court” or ”NCC District Court). Any action for interim measures, including protective measures, available under Dutch law will be brought in the NCC’s Court in Summary Proceedings (CSP) in proceedings in English. Any appeals against NCC or CSP judgments will be submitted to the Amsterdam Court of Appeal’s Chamber for International Commercial Matters (“Netherlands Commercial Court of Appeal” or “NCC Court of Appeal”).

            To request a referral, a motion must be made before the other chamber or court where the action is pending, stating the request and contesting jurisdiction (if the case is not in Amsterdam) on the basis of a choice-of-court agreement (see before).

            Additional arrangements in the proceedings before the Netherlands Commercial Court

            Before or during the proceedings, parties can also agree special arrangements in a customized NCC clause or in another appropriate manner. Such arrangements may include matters such as the following:

            • the law applicable to the substantive dispute
            • the appointment of a court reporter for preparing records of hearings and the costs of preparing those records
            • an agreement on evidence that departs from the general rules
            • the disclosure of confidential documents
            • the submission of a written witness statement prior to the witness examination
            • the manner of taking witness testimony
            • the costs of the proceedings.

            Visiting lawyers and typical course of the procedure

            All acts of process are in principle carried out by a member of the Dutch Bar. Member of the Bar in an EU or EEA Member State or Switzerland may work in accordance with Article 16e of the Advocates Act (in conjunction with a member of the Dutch Bar). Other visiting lawyers may be allowed to speak at any hearing.

            The proceedings will typically follow the below steps:

            • Submitting the initiating document by the plaintiff (summons or request as per Dutch law)
            • Assigned to three judges and a senior law clerk.
            • The defendant submits its defence statement.
            • Case management conference or motion hearing (e.g. also in respect of preliminary issues such as competence, applicable law etc.) where parties may present their arguments.
            • Judgment on motions: the court rules on the motions. Testimony, expert appointment, either at this stage or earlier or later.
            • The court may allow the parties to submit further written statements.
            • Hearing: the court interviews the parties and allows them to present their arguments. The court may enquire whether the dispute could be resolved amicably and, where appropriate, assist the parties in a settlement process. If appropriate, the court may discuss with the parties whether it would be advisable to submit part or all of the dispute to a mediator. At the end of the hearing, the court will discuss with the parties what the next steps should be.
            • Verdict: this may be a final judgment on the claims or an interim judgment ordering one or more parties to produce evidence, allowing the parties to submit written submissions on certain aspects of the case, appointing one or more experts or taking other steps.

            Continuous updates, online resources Netherlands Commercial Court

            As a final note the English language website of the Netherlands Commercial Court provides ample information on procedure and practical issues and is updated with a high frequence. Under current circumstance even at a higher pace. In particular for practitioners it’s recommended to regularly consult the website. https://www.rechtspraak.nl/English/NCC/Pages/default.aspx

            Le operazioni di acquisizione (M&A) in Italia, nella maggior parte dei casi, vengono realizzate attraverso acquisto di partecipazioni (‘share deal’) o di azienda o ramo d’azienda (‘asset deal’). Per ragioni principalmente fiscali sono più frequenti gli share deal rispetto agli asset deal, nonostante l’asset deal consenta una migliore limitazione dei rischi per l’acquirente. Vedremo le principali differenze tra share deal e asset deal in termini di rischi e di rapporti tra venditore e acquirente.

            Preferenza per operazioni di M&A mediante acquisto di partecipazioni (‘share deal’) rispetto ad acquisto di azienda o ramo d’azienda (‘asset deal’) nel mercato italiano

            In Italia, le operazione di acquisizione (M&A) vengono realizzate, nella maggior parte dei casi, attraverso acquisto di partecipazioni (‘share deal’) o di azienda o ramo d’azienda (‘asset deal’). Altre modalità, come la fusione, sono meno frequenti.

            Con l’acquisto di quote o azioni della società acquisita (‘share deal’) l’acquirente acquisisce, indirettamente, l’intero patrimonio aziendale (attività, passività, rapporti) e quindi si fa carico di tutti i rischi relativi alla precedente gestione della società.

            Con l’acquisto dell’azienda o di un ramo d’azienda (‘asset deal’) l’acquirente acquisisce un insieme di beni e rapporti organizzati per l’esercizio dell’impresa (immobili, impianti, dipendenti, contratti, crediti, debiti, ecc.). Il vantaggio dell’asset deal risiede nella possibilità per le parti di definire il perimetro del trasferimento e, quindi, per l’acquirente, di limitare i rischi legali dell’operazione.

            Nonostante questo vantaggio, la maggior parte delle operazioni di acquisizione in Italia avviene attraverso acquisto di partecipazioni. Nel 2018 gli acquisti di partecipazioni (azioni o quote) sono state circa 78.400, mentre le cessioni di azienda sono state circa 35.900 (fonte: www.notariato.it/it/news/dati-statistici-notarili-anno-2018). E va osservato che il dato delle cessioni d’azienda comprende anche le aziende di piccole o piccolissime dimensioni esercitate da imprenditori individuali, per le quali l’alternativa dello share deal (pur praticabile, attraverso il conferimento dell’azienda in una newco e la cessione delle partecipazioni nella newco) non è percorribile in concreto per ragioni di costo.

            Costi fiscali delle operazioni di acquisizione (M&A) in Italia

            La principale ragione della preferenza per l’acquisto di partecipazione (‘share deal’) rispetto all’acquisto di azienda (‘asset deal’) risiede nei costi fiscali dell’operazione. Vediamo quali sono, in linea generale.

            Nell’acquisto di partecipazioni, le imposte dirette a carico del venditore vengono calcolate sulla plusvalenza, secondo le seguenti percentuali:

            • se il venditore è una società di capitali (s.p.a.; s.r.l.; s.a.p.a.) l’aliquota è del 24% della plusvalenza. Ma, a determinate condizioni, si applica il regime della c.d. PEX (participation exemption) con applicazione dell’aliquota del 24% solo sul 5% della plusvalenza.
            • Se il venditore è una persona fisica l’aliquota sulla plusvalenza è del 26%.
            • Se il venditore è una società di persone (s.s.; s.n.c..; s.a.s.) la plusvalenza è integralmente imponibile, tuttavia al ricorrere di determinate condizioni, l’imponibilità è limitata al 60% dell’ammontare della plusvalenza. In entrambi i casi l’aliquota applicabile è quella marginale riferita a ciascun socio a cui il reddito viene imputato per trasparenza.

            Nell’acquisto di partecipazioni si applica l’imposta di registro, normalmente a carico dell’acquirente, di euro 200.

            Anche nell’acquisto di azienda, le imposte dirette a carico del venditore vengono calcolate sulla plusvalenza. Se il venditore è una società di capitali, l’aliquota è del 24% della plusvalenza. Se il venditore è una società di persone (con soci persone fisiche) o un imprenditore individuale, le aliquote dipendono dal reddito del venditore.

            Nell’acquisto di azienda si applicano le imposte indirette, normalmente a carico dell’acquirente, calcolate sulla parte del prezzo attribuibile ai singoli beni trasferiti. Il prezzo è il risultato delle attività trasferite detratte le passività trasferite. Le percentuali sono diverse a seconda del tipo di beni. In generale:

            • ai beni mobili si applica una imposta di registro del 3%;
            • all’avviamento si applica una imposta di registro del 3%;
            • ai fabbricati si applica una imposta di registro del 9% (e imposte ipotecarie e catastali in misura fissa di euro 50 ciascuna);
            • ai terreni si applica una imposta di registro tra il 9 e il 12% (a seconda dell’acquirente) e imposte ipotecarie e catastali in misura fissa di euro 50 ciascuna.

            Nel caso in cui l’azienda sia composta da beni soggetti ad aliquote diverse e le parti abbiano pattuito un corrispettivo unico, senza distinzione in merito al valore attribuibile ai singoli beni, l’imposta deve calcolarsi applicando all’unico corrispettivo pattuito l’aliquota più elevata.

            Va sottolineato che l’Agenzia delle Entrate può sottoporre ad accertamento il valore attribuito dalle parti ai beni immobili e all’avviamento, con conseguente rischio di applicazione di maggiori imposte.

            Share deal e asset deal: rischi e responsabilità verso i terzi

            Nell’acquisto di quote o azioni (‘share deal’) l’acquirente si fa carico, indirettamente, di tutti i rischi relativi alla precedente gestione della società.

            Nell’acquisto dell’azienda o di un ramo d’azienda (‘asset deal’), invece, le parti possono decidere il perimetro del trasferimento (quali beni e rapporti) così stabilendo, nei rapporti tra loro, i rischi che l’acquirente assume.

            Vi sono però alcune norme, che le parti non possono derogare, relative ai rapporti con i terzi, che influiscono significativamente sui rischi per il venditore e l’acquirente e quindi sulla negoziazione dell’accordo tra le parti. Le principali sono le seguenti.

            • Lavoratori dipendenti: il rapporto di lavoro continua con l’acquirente dell’azienda. Il venditore e l’acquirente sono obbligati in solido per tutti i crediti del lavoratore al momento del trasferimento (art. 2112 c.c.).
            • Debiti: il venditore è obbligato al pagamento di tutti i debiti sino alla data del trasferimento. L’acquirente è obbligato per i debiti che risultano dai libri contabili (art. 2560 c.c.).
            • Debiti e responsabilità fiscali: il venditore è obbligato al pagamento di debiti, imposte e sanzioni fiscali relative al periodo sino alla data del trasferimento.
              L’acquirente, in aggiunta all’obbligo relativo ai debiti fiscali che risultano dai libri contabili (art. 2560 c.c.), è responsabile per le imposte e sanzioni, anche se non risultano dai libri contabili, con i seguenti limiti (art. 14 D.lgs. 472/1997):
            • beneficio della preventiva escussione del venditore;
            • fino al valore dell’azienda o del ramo d’azienda acquistato;
            • per le imposte e sanzioni non ancora contestate, la responsabilità riguarda solo quelle relative all’anno della vendita dell’azienda e ai due precedenti; per le imposte e sanzioni relative al periodo anteriore ai due anni precedenti la vendita dell’azienda, la responsabilità riguarda solo quelle contestate entro tale periodo;
            • nei limiti del debito risultante alla data di trasferimento dagli atti degli uffici dell’amministrazione finanziaria. L’Agenzia delle Entrate è tenuta a rilasciare un certificato sull’esistenza di contestazioni in corso e sui debiti. Il certificato negativo, o non rilasciato entro 40 giorni dalla richiesta, libera l’acquirente da responsabilità.
            • Contratti: le parti possono scegliere quali contratti trasferire. Rispetto ai contratti trasferiti, l’acquirente subentra, anche senza il consenso del terzo contraente, nei contratti per l’esercizio dell’azienda che non hanno carattere personale (sono a carattere personale quelli che prevedono da parte del venditore una prestazione oggettivamente infungibile o soggettivamente infungibile). Inoltre il terzo contraente può recedere dal contratto entro tre mesi, se sussiste una giusta causa (ad esempio se l’acquirente non garantisce, per la propria situazione patrimoniale o per capacità tecniche, di poter adempiere al contratto) (art. 2558 c.c.).

            Alcuni strumenti per affrontare i rischi

            Per affrontare i rischi derivanti dalle responsabilità verso i terzi e i rischi generali connessi all’acquisizione, vi sono diversi strumenti negoziali e contrattuali che possono essere utilizzati. Vediamone alcuni.

            Nelle operazioni di acquisto dell’azienda o di rami d’azienda (‘asset deal’):

            • Lavoratori dipendenti: è possibile concordare con il lavoratore modifiche alle condizioni contrattuali e rinunce alla responsabilità solidale dell’acquirente e del venditore (ex art. 2112 c.c.). L’accordo con i lavoratore per essere valido deve essere concluso in sede ‘protetta’ (ad esempio: con l’assistenza delle organizzazioni sindacali).
            • Debiti:
            • trasferire all’acquirente i debiti riducendo il prezzo in misura corrispondente; la riduzione del prezzo comporta, inoltre, una minor costo fiscale dell’operazione. In caso di trasferimento dei debiti, per tutelare il venditore si può ottenere dal creditore una dichiarazione di liberazione del venditore dalla responsabilità ex art. 2560 c.c.; oppure si può prevedere che il pagamento del debito da parte dell’acquirente avvenga contestualmente al trasferimento dell’azienda (‘closing’).
            • Per i debiti non trasferiti all’acquirente, ottenere dal creditore una dichiarazione di liberazione dell’acquirente dalla responsabilità ex art. 2560 c.c.
            • Per i debiti per i quali non sia possibile ottenere la dichiarazione di liberazione da parte del creditore, pattuire forme di garanzia a favore del venditore (per i debiti trasferiti) o a favore dell’acquirente (per i debiti non trasferiti), quali ad esempio la dilazione del pagamento (a favore dell’acquirente) di parte del prezzo, il deposito fiduciario (‘escrow’) di parte del prezzo, fideiussioni bancarie o da parte dei soci.
            • Debiti e responsabilità fiscali:
            • ottenere dall’Agenzia delle Entrate il certificato ex art. 14 D.lgs. 472/1997 sui debiti e le contestazioni in corso;
            • trasferire all’acquirente i debiti riducendo il prezzo in misura corrispondente;
            • pattuire le forme di garanzia a favore del venditore (per i debiti trasferiti) e a favore dell’acquirente (per i debiti non trasferiti o per le contestazioni che non sono ancora debiti), quali ad esempio quelle sopra esposte per i debiti in generale.
            • Contratti: per quelli che vengono trasferiti:
            • verificare che le prestazioni a carico del venditore sino alla data del trasferimento siano state regolarmente adempiute, per evitare il rischio di contestazioni del terzo contraente che possono bloccare l’esecuzione del contratto;
            • almeno per i contratti più importanti (e salvo ragioni di riservatezza), cercare di ottenere conferma dal terzo contraente del benestare al trasferimento del contratto.

            Nelle operazioni di acquisto di partecipazioni (‘share deal’), in cui l’acquirente si fa carico, indirettamente, di tutti i rischi relativi alla precedente gestione della società, alcuni strumenti sono:

            • Due diligence. Svolgere una approfondita due diligence legale, fiscale e contabile sulla società, per valutare preventivamente i rischi e gestirli nella trattativa e nei contratti.
            • Dichiarazioni e garanzie (‘R&W’) e indennizzo. Prevedere nel contratto di acquisizione (‘share purchase agreement’) un set dettagliato di dichiarazioni e garanzie – e obblighi di indennizzo in caso di non conformità – a carico del venditore relativamente alla situazione della società (‘business warranties’: bilancio; situazione patrimoniale di riferimento; contratti; contenzioso; rispetto della normativa ambientale; autorizzazioni per lo svolgimento dell’attività; debiti; crediti ecc.). La trattativa sulle dichiarazioni e garanzie normalmente recepisce, gestendoli, gli esiti della due diligence (ad esempio: viene escluso dalle dichiarazioni e garanzie e dall’indennizzo un contenzioso emerso in due diligence, del quale le parti tengono conto nella definizione del prezzo). La pattuizione di dichiarazioni e garanzie sulla situazione della società (‘business warranties’) e dell’obbligo di indennizzo sono necessari negli share deal in Italia, in quanto in mancanza di tali clausole l’acquirente non può ottenere dal venditore (salvo situazioni estreme e molto rare) un risarcimento o indennizzo in caso la situazione della società sia diversa da quella considerata al momento dell’acquisto (così ad esempio: Cass. Civ. 16963/2014).
            • Garanzie per l’acquirente. Strumenti per garantire all’acquirente l’effettiva possibilità di ottenere l’indennizzo (o parte dell’indennizzo) in caso di non conformità delle dichiarazioni e garanzie. Tra queste: (a) la dilazione del pagamento di parte del prezzo; (b) il versamento di parte del prezzo in un deposito fiduciario (‘escrow’) per la durata delle dichiarazioni e garanzie e, in caso di contestazioni, fino a che la contestazione non è definita; (c) fideiussione bancaria;; (d) polizza W&I, contratto di assicurazione che copre il rischio dell’acquirente in caso di violazioni di dichiarazioni e garanzie, sino ad un importo massimo (ed esclusi alcuni rischi).

            Altri fattori che incidono sulla scelta tra share deal e asset deal

            Naturalmente la scelta di realizzare un’operazione di acquisizione in Italia mediante share deal o asset deal, dipende anche da altri fattori oltre a quello dei costi fiscali dell’operazione. Eccone alcuni.

            • Acquisto di parte del business. Si sceglie l’asset deal, quando l’operazione non riguarda l’acquisto dell’intera azienda del venditore ma solo una sua parte (un ramo d’azienda).
            • Situazione della società problematica. Si sceglie l’asset deal quando la situazione della società target è così problematica che l’acquirente non è disponibile ad assumere tutti i rischi derivanti dalla precedente gestione, ma solo parte di essi.
            • Mantenimento di un ruolo da parte del venditore. Si sceglie lo share deal quando si vuole conservare al venditore un ruolo nella società acquisita. In questo caso, oltre ad un ruolo nel management, è frequente il mantenimento da parte del venditore di una partecipazione di minoranza, con clausole di exit (diritti di put e call) decorso un certo periodo di tempo. Clausole che, spesso, legano il prezzo ai risultati futuri e, quindi, nell’interesse dell’acquirente incentivano il venditore nel ruolo manageriale e, nell’interesse del venditore, valorizzano prospettive reddituali non concretizzate al momento dell’acquisto.

            Dal 1° agosto 2021 non sarà più necessario, per la costituzione di una SRL – società a responsabilità limitata, recarsi dal notaio: la procedura potrà anche essere realizzata completamente on line, salvo casi eccezionali. Ciò è previsto dalla Direttiva U.E. 2019/1151, che impone agli stati di adeguarsi entro due anni. Vediamo cosa prevede la Direttiva.

            Come si costituisce una S.r.l. in Italia oggi

            In Italia, per costituire una società e, in particolare, una società a responsabilità limitata, è sempre necessario rivolgersi ad un notaio.

            Ciò vale anche per la c.d. «SRL semplificata», introdotta nel 2012 dal Decreto Legge «Liberalizzazioni». In questo caso, infatti, la legge prevede che, a fronte dell’utilizzo di uno statuto standard non modificabile, non vi siano oneri notarili da sostenere. Tuttavia, resta sempre necessario comparire avanti ad un notaio.

            Cosa cambierà da agosto 2021 con il recepimento della Direttiva U.E. 2019/1151

            Le cose dovranno cambiare con l’entrata in vigore della Direttiva U.E. 2019/1151, che modifica la Direttiva U.E. 2017/1132 in tema di uso di strumenti e processi digitali nel diritto societario.

            Entro il 1° agosto 2021, gli Stati membri dovranno aggiornare le procedure per la costituzione di una società in modo da garantire un doppio binario.

            Dovrà, cioè, essere possibile costituire una società sia con il metodo tradizionale, ossia rivolgendosi ad un notaio, oppure con procedure esclusivamente on line.

            Due eccezioni

            • l’art. 13-ter, par. 4, dispone che «ove sia giustificato da motivi di interesse pubblico per impedire l’usurpazione o l’alterazione di identità, gli Stati membri possono adottare misure che potrebbero richiedere la presenza fisica ai fini della verifica dell’identità del richiedente dinanzi a un’autorità o a qualsiasi persona od organismo incaricati… Gli Stati membri provvedono affinché la presenza fisica del richiedente possa essere richiesta solo se vi sono motivi di sospettare una falsificazione dell’identità e garantiscono che qualsiasi altra fase della procedura possa essere completata online»;
            • l’art. 13-octies, co. 8, dispone che «ove giustificato da motivi di interesse pubblici a garantire il rispetto delle norme sulla capacità giuridica e sull’autorità dei richiedenti di rappresentare una società, qualsiasi autorità o qualsiasi persona od organismo incaricato… può chiedere la presenza fisica del richiedente… Gli Stati membri garantiscono che tutte le altre fasi della procedura possano essere comunque completate on line».

            Gli Stati membri dovranno mettere a disposizione i modelli necessari per la costituzione delle società a responsabilità limitata «in almeno una lingua ufficiale dell’Unione ampiamente compresa dal maggior numero possibile di utenti transfrontalieri».

            Rischi

            La direttiva rappresenta, indubbiamente, un interessante tentativo di semplificazione, il cui successo dipenderà, tuttavia, da come verrà recepita dai singoli Stati membri.

            I rischi principali sono almeno due:

            1. il primo, facilmente intuibile, è che gli Stati membri rendano troppo oneroso l’accertamento dell’identità od il potere rappresentativo dei richiedenti, rendendo più semplice, in definitiva, il tradizionale ricorso ad un notaio;
            2. il secondo è che le procedure on line siano poco chiare o comprensibili, specie agli utenti stranieri. In tal senso, non appare sufficiente che i modelli siano resi disponibili, ma sarà necessario che le procedure online siano orientate alla maggiore semplificazione possibile e che i modelli siano tutti disponibili almeno in lingua inglese.

            Infine, è evidente che la digitalizzazione del procedimento di costituzione di una società non elimina l’opportunità di rivolgersi ad un professionista con il compito di consigliare il cliente nelle scelte che sarà necessario fare, ad esempio in materia di corporate governance.

            A legal due diligence of a Brazilian target company should analyze the existence and the content of Agency Agreements, including values paid to the agent and the nature of such payments and the factual situation of the target’s agents, in order to evaluate potential contingencies.

            One usual suspect in legal due diligences of Brazilian target companies in M&A transactions that should not be overlooked is the existence of agency agreements, due to:

            • the obligation to indemnify the agent stipulated by law: at least 1/12th of all commissions paid throughout the entire term of the agency agreement; and
            • the risks for the agency being disregarded and considered as an employment relationship, subjecting the principal to compensate the agent as an employee with all rights, benefits, taxes and social contributions.

            This should be considered for evaluation of potential contingencies and the impacts on the valuation of the target.

            No doubt that agents can be an important component of the sales force of the business and can be strategic for the activity of the principal, in view of a certain independence and for not increasing the payroll of a company.

            On the other hand, under Brazilian laws, the protective nature of the agency demands the principal a considerable level of attention.

            Indemnification

            Brazilian Federal Law No. 4,886/65 as amended – the Brazilian Agency Law – determines that the agent is entitled to, at the termination of an agency agreement, receive an indemnification of 1/12th calculated over all the commissions paid throughout the duration of the entire period of the agency agreement.

            The Brazilian Agency Law stipulates that if the parties sign a new contract within 6 months after the expiration of the previous, the relation between agent and principal shall be deemed as the same relationship and thus, the duration to calculate the indemnification shall encompass the entire period (past and subsequent contract).

            Termination by the agent

            The Brazilian Agency Law also stipulates situations that agent could terminate the contract and still be entitled to receive the 1/12th indemnification:

            • reduction of the activities in disagreement with the contractual stipulation
            • breach of exclusivity (territory and/or products), if so stipulated in the agreement
            • determination of prices that makes the agency unfeasible and
            • default on payment of the commissions
            • force majeure

            Termination without cause

            Termination without cause can be done, upon payment to agent of the indemnification and with a previous notice of at least 30 days, in which situation the agent shall receive the payment of 1/3 of the remuneration received during the previous 90 days prior to the termination.

            Can principal avoid the indemnification?

            The only cases where the 1/12th indemnification would not be applicable are when the contract is terminated by principal with cause. The Brazilian Agency Law has limited situations for principal to terminate the contract with cause:

            • acts by agent causing disrepute of the principal
            • breach of obligations related to the agency activities
            • criminal conviction related to honor, reputation

            These situations shall be clearly demonstrated. Producing the sufficiently strong evidence of the facts to configure cause for termination may not be an easy task, considering some of the facts may be subject to construing and interpreting by the parties, witnesses and ultimately the judge.

            As a result, from past experiences, it is rare to see principals in conditions not to incur in the 1/12th indemnification.

            Potential risk: configuring employment relationship

            In addition to the indemnification, the activities developed by the agent could eventually be deemed as performed by a regular employee of the principal and, in this case, principal could be subject to compensate the agent as an employee.

            Agent vs. employee

            For the appreciation of the employment relationship, the individual acting as agent shall file a labor claim and demonstrate the existence of the employment relationship.

            The Labor Court judge will consider the factual situation, prevailing upon the written agreements or other formal documents. The judge may rely on e-mails, witnesses and other evidence.

            The elements of an employment relationship are:

            • Individual: in case the individual acts by himself to perform the services; Personal services: the services are in fact performed by the individual specifically to the Principal;;
            • Non-eventuality – exclusivity: the services are rendered in a regular basis;
            • Subordination: key factor – the individual has to follow strict instructions directed by principal, such as reporting to an employee of the principal, determined visits;
            • Rewarding – fixed remuneration: the individual is awarded regular amounts and expenses allowances

            In the event the individual can demonstrate the existence of the elements to configure an employment relationship, he/she could have an award to entitle him/her to have his remuneration considered as of a regular employee for the last 5 years.

            As a result, the individual would be awarded the payment of Christmas bonus (equivalent to 1 monthly remuneration per year), vacation allowance (1/3 of a monthly remuneration per year), unemployment guarantee fund (1 monthly remuneration per year) plus other benefits that he/she would be given as an employee of principal (based on the collective bargaining agreement between the employees’ and employers’ unions). The company would also be obliged to make the payment of the co-related social security contributions.

            Needless to say, the result could turn into a considerable potential contingency.

            The author of this article is Paulo Yamaguchi

            Uno dei momenti più delicati di qualsiasi operazione di M&A è sicuramente il momento in cui si affronta il tema delle «garanzie», in particolare con riferimento alla situazione economica, patrimoniale e finanziaria della società o dell’azienda (o di un ramo d’azienda), ovvero le c.d. «business warranties».

            Da un lato, infatti, il compratore vorrebbe «blindare» quanto più possibile il proprio investimento, riducendo al minimo il rischio di sorprese. Al contrario, il venditore vorrebbe contenere il più possibile le garanzie offerte, che spesso si traducono in un limite temporaneo al pieno godimento dei frutti della vendita, di cui magari necessita per effettuare un altro investimento.

            È bene precisare, innanzi tutto, che con il termine «garanzie» si fa normalmente riferimento, in modo atecnico, ad un articolato set di previsioni contrattuali contenenti:

            • le dichiarazioni del venditore circa lo stato di salute della società o dell’azienda (o del ramo d’azienda) ceduta;
            • gli obblighi d’indennizzo assunti dal venditore in caso di «violazione» (ossia non corrispondenza al vero) delle dichiarazioni rese;
            • gli strumenti previsti al fine di assicurare l’effettività degli obblighi d’indennizzo assunti.

            Vi sono diverse ragioni per cui tale set è necessario, ma la principale è che nei contratti di M&A non trovano applicazione le garanzie civilistiche sulle vendita se non limitatamente al bene venduto, pertanto, se il bene venduto sono le partecipazioni, le garanzie non coprono gli asset sottostanti della società, e, nei casi eccezionali in cui trovano applicazione, i termini brevi e le limitazioni stringenti rendono, comunque, opportuna l’assunzione di obbligazioni accessorie volte a garantire il buon esito economico dell’operazione.

            Ciò è confermato dalla pratica: nelle operazioni di M&A non vi è contratto che non includa il set delle garanzie.

            Le dichiarazioni, in particolare, recepiscono normalmente la due diligence svolta dal compratore, preceduta, a sua volta, da un non disclosure agreement (NDA), finalizzato a tutelare le informazioni messe a disposizione.

            Eventuali criticità che dovessero emergere dovranno essere adeguatamente riportate. Ovviamente, non è detto che un’eventuale criticità, laddove si concretizzi, debba necessariamente far scattare un obbligo d’indennizzo. Spetterà alle parti regolamentare tale aspetto, potendo anche prevedere che il relativo rischio resti a carico del compratore, magari a fronte di una riduzione del prezzo.

            In merito all’obbligo d’indennizzo dovranno poi essere attentamente negoziati alcuni aspetti. I principali sono sicuramente:

            • la durata (es. maggiore per le garanzie fiscali);
            • a chi spetta l’eventuale indennizzo (al compratore o alla società; all’uno o all’altra a seconda dei casi);
            • eventuali detrazioni e /o limitazioni (es. perdite fiscali);
            • l’importo massimo indennizzabile;
            • un’eventuale franchigia;
            • la procedura d’indennizzo (es. termini per la richiesta, procedura di composizione, situazioni particolari, etc.).

            Si tratta di aspetti importantissimi, che non devono essere sottovalutati. È chiaro, ad esempio, che non disciplinare adeguatamente la procedura d’indennizzo rischia di vanificare tutto il lavoro fatto prima.

            Infine, dovranno essere previsti strumenti idonei al fine di assicurare la tutela effettiva del compratore. Tra questi, quelli più tradizionali sono:

            • la fideiussione;
            • il contratto autonomo di garanzia;
            • il deposito fiduciario («escrow»);
            • la dilazione di pagamento;
            • il meccanismo di «earn out»;
            • il c.d. «price adjustment»;
            • la lettera di patronage;
            • il pegno e/o l’ipoteca.

            Si tratta di strumenti tutti più o meno largamente utilizzati nella pratica, che presentano ciascuno dei pro e dei contro.

            Qui, tuttavia, vogliamo occuparci di un nuovo strumento di natura assicurativa, a cui si sta cominciando a fare ricorso negli ultimi tempi: le c.d. «Polizze Warranty & Indemnity».

            Con una polizza W&I, in pratica, l’assicuratore, a fronte del pagamento di un premio, assume su di sé il rischio derivante dalla violazione delle dichiarazioni contenute in un contratto di M&A.

            Presupposto fondamentale, ovviamente, è che la violazione derivi da fatti antecedenti al closing e non noti in quel momento (e, quindi, non evidenziati dalla due diligence effettuata).

            La polizza può essere sottoscritta dal compratore (buyer side) o dal venditore (seller side). Di regola è preferita la prima soluzione. Tali polizze W&I presentano numerosi vantaggi:

            • si ottiene una garanzia a fronte di un venditore non sempre disponibile ad impegnarsi contrattualmente;
            • la polizza generalmente non prevede l’ipotesi di regresso nei confronti del venditore, salvo il caso di dolo, per cui il venditore è integralmente liberato;
            • è possibile ottenere un massimale maggiore di quello previsto nel contratto di compravendita;
            • analogamente, la copertura può essere prevista per un periodo più lungo;
            • si facilitano le relazioni con il venditore, specie nel caso ci siano più venditori ed alcuni di essi restino nella società, magari occupando un posto nel Consiglio d’Amministrazione;
            • si facilita notevolmente il processo d’indennizzo, specie nel caso in cui ci siano più venditori, magari persone fisiche;
            • il compratore riesce ad avere una maggiore certezza di solvibilità.

            Il costo della polizza potrebbe essere condiviso tra le parti, eventualmente con uno sconto del prezzo, che il venditore potrebbe essere disposto a concedere tenuto conto del fatto che non dovrà rilasciare altre garanzie e potrà godere immediatamente dei frutti della vendita.

            Il premio è normalmente compreso tra l’1% ed il 2% del limite d’indennizzo previsto (con un premio minimo).

            Attualmente, i limiti principali di questo strumento paiono essere, oltre al prezzo, che rende lo strumento adatto principalmente ad operazioni di importo non piccolo, la franchigia standard normalmente prevista, pari all’1% dell’Enterprise Value del Target, riducibile allo 0,5% a fronte di un innalzamento del premio. Da tenere presente inoltre che la polizza W&I implica la revisione della due diligence da parte della compagnia, che può tradursi in un intervento attivo nella negoziazione delle garanzie.

            A parte ciò, lo strumento è da considerare attentamente: in presenza di situazioni particolarmente complesse, potrebbe rappresentare la giusta soluzione per sbloccare situazioni di stallo negoziale e rendere più agevoli negoziazioni tra investitori professionali e PMI.

            The procedure to incorporate a foreign owned company in Spain is, in principle, easy and straight forward, however it is necessary to take into account certain new requirements derived from the tax and the anti-money laundering regulations, which could cause long delays in the incorporation process, even to EU and US companies, if they are not well advised and managed from the beginning of the procedure.

            The first step consist in collecting information about the foreign shareholder, in order to be able to prove its legal existence and activities: the foreign shareholder(s) will have to grant before a Notary Public in its country of residence a power of attorney authorising somebody in Spain to obtain its tax identification number (“NIE”), and also represent it before the Spanish notary when signing the deed of incorporation. In case the foreign shareholder is an individual person, the NIE should be applied for before the Spanish police or the Spanish Consulate at the country where the investor lives.

            If the shareholder is a corporation, apart from the Power of Attorney, it will have to obtain a certificate from its Companies’ Registry or Chamber of Commerce, stating its legal existence and main characteristics. This document is called “good standing certificate” (in the UK and US), “K-bis” (in France), “KvK” (in the Netherlands) or “visura” (in Italy). These two documents, the Power of Attorney mentioned in the above paragraph and the certificate from the Companies’ Registry, will have to be Apostilled or legalized by the correspondent Ministry, and Sworn translated into Spanish. Please note that we use to draft bilingual powers of attorney in order to avoid its sworn translation.

            The foreign shareholder will have to prove that its income is obtained from legal activities in order to be able to open a bank account in the name of the new company. The main document to prove this could be the Corporate or the Personal Income Tax return filed in its country of residence, but there could be other means, especially in case of individual persons.

            In case of a corporate shareholder, it will be necessary as well to declare, in principle through a public deed granted in Spain, who are the individual persons who, directly or through other companies, will hold more than a 25% interest in the new company to be incorporated. In case nobody holds more than a 25% (i.e. because there are 5 individual shareholders, holding each of them a 20%), it is declared that the effective control of the new company corresponds to its director.

            At this stage, it is also necessary to mention that the person(s) who will be the director(s) of the new company, in case they are foreigners, will also need to obtain their personal “NIE”. The NIE should be applied for before the Spanish police (this could be done by a proxy duly authorised though a Power of Attorney granted by the foreign director) or before the Spanish Consulate nearest to the city where the investor lives. In order to be a director of a Spanish company it is not necessary to be a shareholder, nor to have residence and work permit in Spain (provided the foreign director does not live in Spain).

            Meanwhile the necessary documents (Powers of Attorney, Companies’ Registry certificate, etc.) are being prepared by the foreign shareholder, the lawyer in Spain will apply for the new company’s name. It is advisable to point out that generic or usual names are not available quite often, therefore it is necessary to think in original names. Three different names could be applied for simultaneously.

            The drafting of the company’s Articles of Association or By Laws could be very quick, except if the company is going to have several shareholders and they wish specific clauses. In this case, it is also advisable to draft a Shareholders Agreement. The Shareholders’ Agreement could just contain some basic rules on dedication, compensation, non-competition, etc. and some more sophisticated rules on the sale of shares (tag along and drag along rights). As regards the By-Laws, they should mention the company’s name, its activity or activities, address in Spain –which cannot be just a P.O. Box-, share capital, number of shares and its face value, and starting date for the fiscal year, among other standard clauses.

            The management of the company could be organized through a sole director, two directors who could act jointly or separately, and in case there are more than three directors, they should organize themselves through a Board of Directors, being usual in this case to appoint a C.E.O. In order to be a director it is not necessary to be a shareholder. Under Spanish laws, the director(s) could be held liable for some company’s debts under certain circumstances which are legally defined. For this reason, it is necessary that the directors formally accept their appointment (personally appearing before the Notary or through a Power of Attorney).

            Before the incorporation, it will be necessary that either the new company’s director (the person to be appointed) or the representative of the corporate shareholder appears personally before the bank where the company will have its first bank account and signs the correspondent documents (KYC regulation). Once the bank account is opened, the shareholder will have to send a bank transfer for the new company’s share capital. In Spain, the minimum share capital for a limited company (S.L.) is Euros 3.000, while for a “Sociedad Anónima” (S.A.) it is Euros 60.000, but only 25% should be paid off at the incorporation moment. It is interesting to note that contributions to the share capital could be made in cash – which is the most common operation, especially at the incorporation – or in kind, with any type of assets: real estate, machinery, goods, trademarks, etc. The money for the share capital should be sent to the new company’s bank account from an account owned by the shareholder (or from each account owned by each shareholder, should they be several ones), not by any other different person. Once the Spanish bank receives the transfer, it will issue a certificate, which is necessary in order to incorporate the company.

            Once all the documents are ready, it is possible within very few days (almost immediately) to make the appointment with the Notary and sign the public deed of incorporation. This can be done at any notary in Spain, not being necessary that the notary practises at the same city where the company will have its corporate address. In order to summarize, the list of the necessary documents is:

            • Power(s) of Attorney granted by the foreign shareholder(s), apostilled and sworn translated.
            • Certificate regarding the legal existence of the foreign shareholder (only if it is a corporation), apostilled and sworn translated.
            • Statement on who are the last individual shareholders holding more than 25% interest in the new company, directly or indirectly (only in case of corporate shareholders).
            • NIE of the foreign shareholder(s).
            • NIE of the new company’s director(s), should they be a foreigners.
            • Certificate for the new company’s name.
            • Articles of Association.
            • Bank certificate regarding the contribution to the new company’s share capital.

            The deed of incorporation is signed by the proxy (or the individual shareholder(s), should they prefer to personally appear before the notary) before the chosen public notary, being also necessary to sign an official form to report the foreign investment to a public registry depending on the Spanish Ministry of Finance.

            Once the deed of incorporation is signed, the next steps consist in applying before the tax authorities to obtain the new company’s tax number (NIF / CIF) and filing the deed of incorporation before the Companies’ Registry. Some banks do allow new companies to operate once they have the NIF (which could be 2-3 days after the incorporation), while others request to wait until the deed of incorporation is filed at the Companies’ Registry (2-3 weeks).

            An estimation of the necessary time to complete all the procedure is 30-45 days, but of course the main delay is related to speed of the foreign investor in obtaining the necessary documents.

            Please note that if you wish to incorporate a foreign owned company in Spain it is always necessary to seek specific professional advice, as each case is different and regulations and the application of such regulations vary from time to time. The above article just explains the main steps and requirements for the incorporation of a company.

            In all M&A operations one of the issues that deserves special attention as regards its analysis, ascertainment and negotiation is the tax liabilities. Even though the parties could agree on the amount of such contingencies, to negotiate the possible guarantees that the seller should grant in order to protect the buyer from a possible claim by the tax authorities, the term during which the guarantees should be in force, and to agree on the communication mechanisms between the parties (buyer and seller) and the legal defense strategies if such claim from the tax authorities arises, requires substantial negotiation efforts.

            When the acquisition operation is formalized not through the purchase of shares, but through the purchase of the assets that form a business unit, the Spanish General Tax Law (“Ley General Tributaria” or “LGT”) provides a mechanism which implies an exception to the general principle provided by article 42 of the same law. Article 42 of LGT establishes the joint liability of the purchaser of a business unit for the tax liabilities of the selling company (“tax liability derived from company’s succession”). That is, in principle, according to article 42 of the LGT “the persons or entities that continue by any mean in the ownership or exercise of economic activities (the buyers) will be jointly liable with the previous owner for the tax liabilities derived from the exercise of such economic activities incurred by such previous owner”.

            However, the joint tax liability of the buyer could be limited through the application before the tax authorities of the tax certificate regulated by article 175.2 of the LGT. This certificate should be applied for by the prospective buyer, with the authorization of the present owner (the seller), and, once issued, the tax liability of the buyer becomes limited to the debts, penalties and liabilities mentioned in the certificate. If the certificate is issued without mentioning any amount, or if the tax authorities do not issue it within a three months term from the application’s date, the applicant (the buyer) will be released from any tax liability derived from company’s succession.

            The tax certificate for succession purposes includes the main taxes, as Value Added Tax and Corporate Income Tax, and can include as well debts derived from the withholding taxes on employees’ payroll, which in case of companies with a big number of employees could be of an outstanding amount. However, the buyer’s joint liability for salaries, related payroll amounts and social security contributions cannot be limited by such certificate, and such liability will always be joint with the business unit seller’s liability.

            The application for the tax certificate should be filed before the acquisition of the business unit is completed, even if the issuance of the certificate takes place later tan the closing date (but of course, it is wiser to not close the acquisition before having the certificate). The certificate’s validity lasts for one year, as regards periodical tax obligations (for example, Value Added Tax, Corporate Income Tax and withholding taxes on salaries) and for three months as regards non periodical tax obligations.

            It is very important to apply for the right tax certificate (“certificate for succession purposes according to article 175.2 of LGT”), and to not make a mistake and apply, for example, for the certificate regarding having fulfilled all tax obligations (“certificado de estar al corriente de las obligaciones fiscales”). Case law is plenty of judgments where a buyer applied for the wrong certificate, which showed no liabilities, and later on such buyer has been sentenced to pay the tax liabilities incurred by the previous owner of the business unit.

            When M&A transactions in Brazil are deemed not successful by the investor the main reason for underperformance is generally the existence of debts or fiscal/labor contingencies materialized higher than evaluated, or unexpected material adverse changes.

            The reasons for overlooking the debts and fiscal/labor contingencies is often the rush to close the investment. Either for avoiding a competitor to acquire the target, or to keep the leading position of the market share, for certain cases, the buyers may have not paid proper attention to what their advisors had to say before closing the deal.

            1. Local legal advisors

            The legal advisors may take, for the perception of the executives eager to complete an acquisition, a bit longer than expected to round up facts and properly report the risks found. The perception for this lower pace to reach out the conclusions may differ from the executives due to the delay of seller to provide documents or clarify questions raised.

            Slowing down a bit to the benefit of certainty is a sound advice.

            Experienced Brazilian advisors shall always be included among the teams. Their knowledge on facing subtle change of applicable laws, rules or predominant court decisions is certainly valuable for better understanding the status of the target and the ways to mitigate risks.

            Certain facts may not seem at first as significant risk for first timers dealing with Brazilian matters. However, the advisors do have a reason to raise the point and should be properly heard. Examples such as absence of one single clear certificate issued by a government department or a missing report on disposal of solid residues, that may not seem a big issue, could turn into a risk of suspension of activities of a plant.

            An audit company is usually hired to identify tax and labor contingencies, but the audit company does not evaluate nor assess the numbers, only the maximum exposure. The legal advisors are in charge of the risk assessment and determination of the estimate of the contingencies. It is up to the buyer to accept and negotiate the relevant coverage for such contingencies.

            Seller may not give full details of all issues of the target at first. It is the role of the advisors to investigate, request further documents and clarification to bring matters that affect the business to buyer’s attention. In a good faith scenario, seller would be willing to discuss the matters, to avoid future disputes or frustrations to buyer.

            1. Debt

            Charges, penalties, interests and other compensations in financial operations turns these contracts full of minor details and very complex in anywhere in the world. Brazilian contracts are not exception. That is the reason why a proper assessment of the financial operations and obtain the real picture of the debt and related costs.

            As usual, attention to change of control provisions are also relevant to mitigate risks – absence of consent or non-compliance of the required steps prior to closing the operation can cause acceleration of the financial operation and trigger cross-default provisions in other contracts that can also lead to acceleration of the financial operations.

            1. Tax/labor contingencies

            Calculation and estimate of tax contingencies are specific for each tax and requires knowledge and a sound judgment to estimate exposure and appoint measures to cover the risks. Same level of care applies to labor-related contingencies.

            Tax and labor matters are usually the most relevant risks to be observed in a Brazilian target. Complexity of regulation and the amount of obligations to fulfill makes these points significant.

            1. Material adverse change

            Material adverse change clauses – “MAC Clauses” – are contractual provisions to mitigate negative effects or a substantial change to the parties. These provisions are admitted in Brazilian law, in view the M&A transaction documents are executed in good faith and respecting the parties’ freedom to commit to certain obligations.

            Needless to say, the MAC Clauses should contain crystal clear language, with objective description of the facts, well defined applicable time period, cause and consequences duly described for proper and easy execution. If not, determination of MAC Clause event shall end on a dispute.

            In the absence of MAC Clauses, Brazilian Civil Code contemplates the ability to any party in a continuous contractual relation to seek for the termination of the contract, by virtue of extraordinary and unpredictable facts, in the event such party is affected with excessive onus and generates extreme advantage to another party. Determination whether the parties were subject to extraordinary and unpredictable facts would depend nevertheless on ruling by a judge or arbitrator, as provided in the acquisition documents.

            1. Guarantees and Indemnification

            For avoidance of future problems, the buyer should obtain strong and prompt executable guarantees. The (a) ability to withhold payments, (b) deposit of part of the purchase price in escrow account with clear rules for withdrawing the escrow amount are most likely measures to ensure a prompt indemnification. From previous experiences, other guarantees like pledge of shares, personal guarantee, lien or even chattel mortgage over real property are harder to execute and indemnify the prejudiced party.

            De minimis clauses (minimum amount for a party to be indemnified – if not reached, the prejudiced party is not going to receive any indemnification) or basket (limitation of indemnifiable amount) are additions to the provisions for guarantees also acceptable for Brazilian M&A transactions.

            The experienced advisors will make a difference to assist on the drafting of these provisions and to reflect what the parties discussed and agreed on the table.

            1. Break-up Fees

            A conscious buyer will certainly avoid the risk of incurring in heavy break-up fees, with proper assessment provided by competent advisors of what may happen until closing. Nevertheless, in certain cases, even after signing a binding document, it might make sense paying a break-up fee even if substantial rather than entering into a risky transaction.

            Recent Brazilian M&A transactions have included break-up fees, applicable in case of the regulatory restrictions are too high or in case the buyer gives up the acquisition. The highest break-up fee known was included in an offer made by Paper Excellence (member of Asia Pulp and Paper, based in Indonesia) was BRL 4 billion (over USD 1 billion or around EUR 900 million). The deal was not closed as another bidder had better credit check (even proposing lower break-up fees).

            In 2015, Ânima paid BRL 46 million (around USD 12.5 million or EUR 10.6 million) of break-up fees to Whitney do Brasil – education sector – for giving up the acquisition due to changes on students’ public financing rules. In 2018, Ultragaz paid BRL 280 million (around USD 75 million or EUR 64 million) in break-up fees to Liquigás, due to the veto by the Brazilian antitrust authority for the operation.

            1. Recommendations

            In this regard, the recommendations to avoid the referred reasons for a not satisfactory failure in M&A transactions in Brazil are:

            • Rely on local advisors: make sure that local Brazilian experts are included in the advisory team – the proper Brazilian legal, accountancy, tax and business experts can provide you with the necessary and valuable information for the proper decision-making process;
            • Listen to what the local advisors have to say: some matters raised may not seem to harm the deal, but it is important to let your advisor give you the full explanation and the reasons why the advisor is concerned about the topic. The advisor has a reason to bring the matters to discussion;
            • On the buy-side, ensure the existence of proper guarantees – feasible and enforceable – for prompt reimbursement of the losses, instead of discussions or long disputes;
            • Be very attentive in the preparation and discussion of the indemnification, procedure for indemnifying a prejudiced party, accommodating the business negotiation and the coverage to the risks explained by the advisors;
            • MAC Clauses shall be clear, precise and objective; and
            • However hard may be, it might make sense paying a break-up fee instead of completing a risky transaction.

            The author of this article is Paulo Yamaguchi

            Roberto Luzi Crivellini

            Aree di attività

            • Arbitrato
            • Distribuzione
            • Commercio internazionale
            • Contenzioso
            • Real estate
            Contatta Roberto

            Scrivi a Roberto





              Leggi la privacy policy di Legalmondo.
              Questo sito è protetto da reCAPTCHA e si applicano le Norme sulla privacy e i Termini di servizio di Google.