Merger and Acquisition Deal Structure - Sale of Assets
Assets transactions offer limited liability and tax benefits to the buyer, but create administrative burdens.
Because acquisition transactions in
Asset purchase agreements are used when the buyer does not want to assume any liabilities of the seller, except for those specifically outlined in the agreement (and those from which applicable law does not permit the buyer to escape). This structure is typically used for small owner-operator businesses, such as restaurants, retail establishments, and small service or manufacturing businesses. It can also be used where actual, or a fear of, residual liabilities exist, such as with businesses performing hazardous operations. In addition to their liability-limiting feature, asset purchase transactions can provide tax benefits to the buyer. For example, some of the assets purchased in the transaction can be depreciated over time.
The tax impact may of the transaction, however, require attention and negotiation. Assets which are not intended for resale may be subject to sales tax. Although the seller is liable for any sales tax in
Special tasks face buyers purchasing a restaurant or a company which principally sells merchandise from stock. In these cases, a buyer, in cooperation with the seller, will make a "bulk sales" notice. If the buyer fails to do so, the buyer may be liable for claims of the purchased company, even if the buyer merely purchased the company's assets.
Assets can be purchased with cash or stock. If stock is used, securities laws must be complied with, which can increase expense and time to close a sale. If a mixture of cash and stock is used, tax impacts might arise in corporate transactions depending on the relative proportion of each component.
Asset transactions create administrative burdens. All assets must be listed and accounted for. This often requires taking a physical inventory and making adjustments if the inventory predates the closing. If the business has valuable contracts, the contracts need to be reviewed to determine if they can be assigned to the buyer. If not, the other party to the contract may need to consent to the assignment, a potentially time consuming and frustrating process.
Because only assets are being purchased, employees of the purchased business may have to be terminated. Any employees with accrued vacation will have to be paid that vacation. The buyer will then have the option to hire those employees back, or bring in its own employees. For companies with a large number of employees which expect to close facilities after the acquisition, federal and
Asset deals provide the best liability limitation for buyers. However, their complexity may render them unwieldy for larger transactions and their use should be explored prior to committing to any sale.


Comments
Company:
Great post, Bob. Asset sales are a very frequent "exit" for companies, many of them poor exits! But there are many good reasons to do an asset sale with a positive exit as well and this was a nice primer.
In your experience, how long does an asset sale take to wind up, once the parties come to terms, assuming I'm a non-inventory-holding mid-sized company?
Company: Structure Law Group, LLP
Jeff:
Thanks for your comment. Keep in mind that my response is not legal advice, but a discussion for educational purposes.
My experience is that once parties come to basic terms, hopefully by using a term sheet, closing occurs in about 6 - 8 weeks. As you might imagine, there are a number of caveats. These include everything from receiving necessary consents to contract transfers to shareholder consent. If you were in the business of selling items from inventory, or a large or regulated company, you would also want to factor in legally required notices or approval. Thanks again for your question.
Company: ABI-Tranzequity Advisors
Bob,
Great overview of this transfer method. As you certainly realize, but I will point out for other potential readers who may not, if the seller is organized as a C Corporation -- a corporation that's not taken the Sub-chapter S election -- they have a tremendous tax DIS-incentive for the deal to be structured as an asset sale: a "double taxation" of tax at both the corporate and shareholder level.
If the buyer insists on an asset sale structure under this circumstance, e.g. for liability shielding, they should expect to pay a price premium for the deal. A non-desperate seller will typically not agree to the same price if the structure reduces after-tax proceeds so dramatically.
There are special circumstances in which a stock sale can be treated as an asset sale for tax purposes, but in any case, parties to the transaction need qualified counsel to guide them through these critical decisions.
Company: Structure Law Group, LLP
Dick:
I couldn't agree more that asset sales from a C corp are problematic and do require intensive analysis, the explanation of which is outside the scope of a simple blog. My experience in a C corp asset structure has been in troubled company transactions, a context you recognize in your reference to a "non-desperate seller". Where the sellers are not desperate, there may be other structures available to meet the buyer's liability concerns.
Thanks for your post - this type of interaction really does provide dividends (sorry, couldn't resist).