|
|

|
|
About Husqvarna
The
Husqvarna Group is the world's largest producer of chainsaws,
lawn mowers and other petrol-powered garden equipment such as trimmers
and leaf blowers, as well as one of the world's largest producers
of garden tractors. Husqvarna is also one of the world's largest
producers of cutting equipment for the construction and stone industries.
The product offering comprises equipment for both consumers and
professional users.
Husqvarna Outdoor Products,
PO Box 76-437, Manukau City, Auckland
|
|
No. 14 Joint ventures have attractions – but beware the pitfalls
NEW ZEALAND FARM FORESTRY ASSOCIATION - INFORMATION LEAFLET
Like a lot of other legal phrases, ‘joint venture’ is a term which is
used pretty loosely to describe a whole range of relationships.
It is most synonymous with partnership but has the legal distinction
that it is venture-specific, and the rights and obligations of the
parties are determined by the contract between them, without the
statutory and common law overlays that affect partnerships. The
distinctions are often blurred, however.
The most important distinction is that partners are liable for
obligations or commitments entered into by other partners in the course
of carrying on the
partnership business, whereas joint venture parties generally are not.
Basically in a joint venture, parties come together to contribute
different things and to share in the proceeds, e.g. to establish,
manage, harvest and sell timber. This may involve two people forming a
joint venture to buy or lease
some land with each person contributing to the establishment,
maintenance and harvesting costs. Both parties would then share the
proceeds.
There may also be another ‘joint venture’ in that relationship if, for
instance, the land is leased or a forestry right granted on a
participatory basis where the landlord/grantor receives a nominal rent
in exchange for a share in the proceeds when the forest is sold. These
stumpage sharing or ‘deferred rental’ arrangements are, in essence,
another form of joint venture where the landowner’s contribution is the
land for a period of time and the rental return is dependent on
stumpage returns.
The ‘joint venture’ relationship that presents the widest range of
joint venture agreement relationship issues is the venture between
investors. This venture can be directly between individuals or through
a company where the joint venture terms are captured in a shareholders’
agreement and in the constitution of the company. Companies are most
often used as a vehicle for investment in forestry when they qualify as
Loss Attributing Qualifying Companies for tax purposes. Tax will, of
course, be a significant factor in determining the
structure of any joint venture.
Get the basics right
Exit options
Get the basics
right
The issues to be covered in a joint venture agreement, though, are
largely the same whether investing directly or through a company. When
establishing a joint venture it is important to get the basics right.
What are parties objectives? Does this form of venture enable all
parties to achieve their objectives? If
one party’s goals can only be achieved to the detriment of another you
have a recipe for disaster.
It is also important to establish what the parties’ contributions and
obligations are to be. One may be responsible for providing land or
money, another may be responsible for providing management input, or
carrying out work such as planting. Parties undertaking activities may
or may not get paid on the way through and contributions may be
accumulated and dealt with in determining profit shares.
A joint venture has to deal with its own internal administration and
procedures, particularly decision making and what participants’ voting
rights are - in other words, where control lies. A joint venture
agreement also deals with housekeeping matters such as bank accounts,
cheque signatories, financial accounts to be maintained and whether or
not those accounts are to be audited.
Exit options
If a party is in a minority and if at some point it does not like what
is going on, its exit options will be important. The worst possible
situation in these circumstances is if a party is locked in either
because it has agreed that it won’t sell it’s interest for a period of
time or because it simply has an unmarketable interest and the other
party or parties won’t buy it out at a fair price.
Joint venture agreements often have devices to get round those type of
problems. One of them is a ‘shotgun provision’. This is where party A
tells party B that A is prepared to sell for a certain price. B can
either buy A’s interest at that price or sell B’s interest to A at
exactly the same price.
In these circumstances, if you want out, you actually have to be
prepared to end up owning the whole. These sorts of clauses tend to
disadvantage minority interests because they do not have the resources
to take up the other side’s shares or interest if it is put to them.
A more equitable solution may be that if the parties are unable to come
to an agreement on one buying the other out within a certain period of
time then the whole project is put on the market and sold.
In an equal shareholding situation it is not uncommon to simply have a
deadlock situation where unanimity is required on all issues. In these
situations, both parties become completely hamstrung in their ability
to operate the joint venture and the agreement relies upon the
incentive of commercial necessity to force the parties to a compromise.
A variation on that theme is to have somebody come in as an arbitrator
or an umpire and try to resolve the dispute, but then the joint venture
is in danger of being managed by a third party. In circumstances where
one party simply wants to exit and there is a market, often the
agreement will provide that such interest needs to be offered to the
other participants first. Assessment of value then becomes an
issue as minority interests can be penalised for their lack of
liquidity and, as a result, sell at a discount.
There are of course many other things to look out for. However, joint
ventures are a widely accepted means of pooling capital and resources,
and need to be acknowledged and approached as such.
(top)
This article by Jeff Morrison, a partner in Russell
McVeagh, appeared in the August 1999 issue of the New Zealand
Tree Grower.