Succession Plan in Place?

KPMG conducted a Private Company Survey for 2010 and from a legal perspective we were surprised to find that only 25% of businesses have a succession plan in place covering owners, directors and key executives.

A succession plan includes business strategies and legal contracts to cover business issues that usually include in a partnership deed and a company shareholders deed in the event of:
  • death
  • divorce
  • separation of partners
  • sale of the company
If you are part of the 75% who don’t have a succession plan you may leave your business exposed to company dissolution or adverse financial consequences and your family exposed to unnecessary legal battles.

The other statistics in the survey that were related to succession plans were that;
  • 75% of businesses were planning new investments over the next twelve months,
  • 66% of businesses are interested in offshore expansion,
  • and on the other end of the spectrum, 30% of businesses were considering an exit strategy over the next three years, selling to partners, independents or competitors.
How can we help?

We provide clients with succession plans, assistance with international expansion as well as advice on mergers and acquisitions, sales contracts or partnership restructuring.

All of these situations need legal consultation and incorporation into contractual agreements to protect you and your company.

If you would like strategic or legal advice in any of these areas please contact Jarmal Richard at Tel: (03) 9614 4111 or on email at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .
 

Sharc_logoFinal
Please enter your email address to subscribe to jdrlegal's s.h.a.r.c.* newsletter

Email address

*Stuff that's Helpful and Really Cool

   

AmCham Elects Jarmal Richard as New State Chairman in Victoria

Jarmal Richard, CEO and Founder of jdrlegal Pty Ltd has been elected as the new State Chairman of the American Chamber of Commerce in Victoria.  Click here for more information.

   

Obama Administration Announces Federal Loan Guarantees for ‘Green Energy’ Projects

The Obama administration recently announced project loan guarantees for major solar and nuclear energy projects.

The administration has offered $8.3 billion in federal loan guarantees to help build the nation’s first commercial nuclear reactors in nearly three decades.  Obama said “to meet our growing needs and prevent the worst consequences of climate change, we need to increase our supply of nuclear power and today’s announcement helps to move us down that path”.

In addition, the administration has given preliminary approval for a $1.4 billion in federal loan guarantees to help build the world’s largest solar power complex in California.  The Department of Energy is offering to back the loans of California-based BrightSource Energy so that it can build the solar power complex which it estimates will be capable of powering 140,000 homes.

   

US Supreme Court Narrows Scope of US Litigation

The US Supreme Court recently has ruled in the case of Hertz Global Holdings Inc. that the test for determining a corporation’s principal place of business is to establish where its key executives work, which will typically be at its headquarters as opposed to where its products or services may be sold.  The Hertz ruling is likely to have the effect of limiting the abilities of parties to ‘shop around’ for courts that have favorable laws or conditions under which to sue.

In the Hertz case, two California citizens sued Hertz in California on the basis that Hertz conducted business in California.  Hertz sought to move the case to the US Federal Court and argued its core executive functions were at its New Jersey Headquarters.  Hertz submitted that it operated in 44 US States and its operations in California constituted less than 20% of its business.  Initially, the federal district court ruled against Hertz, and this decision was affirmed by the US Ninth Circuit of Appeals.  However, the US Supreme Court unanimously overturned the previous decisions, saying that a business’ principal place of business “is best read as referring to the place where a corporation’s officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation’s activities”.

The US Supreme Court recently has ruled in the case of Hertz Global Holdings Inc. that the test for determining a corporation’s principal place of business is to establish where its key executives work, which will typically be at its headquarters as opposed to where its products or services may be sold. The Hertz ruling is likely to have the effect of limiting the abilities of parties to ‘shop around’ for courts that have favorable laws or conditions under which to sue.

In the Hertz case, two California citizens sued Hertz in California on the basis that Hertz conducted business in California. Hertz sought to move the case to the US Federal Court and argued its core executive functions were at its New Jersey Headquarters. Hertz submitted that it operated in 44 US States and its operations in California constituted less than 20% of its business. Initially, the federal district court ruled against Hertz, and this decision was affirmed by the US Ninth Circuit of Appeals. However, the US Supreme Court unanimously overturned the previous decisions, saying that a business’ principal place of business “is best read as referring to the place where a corporation’s officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation’s activities”.

   

More Articles...

Page 1 of 2

Login Form