• Skip to content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Rob Henry

  • About
  • Business Litigation
  • Personal Injury
  • Contact
  • 📱 Call (817) 877-3303

Business Litigation

September 18, 2017 By Rob Henry

Rob’s Thoughts on Going Into Business with Family or Friends

Are you wondering if you should go into business with a friend or family member? Here is some food for thought from Fort Worth Attorney Rob Henry, who suggests you ask yourself three simple questions before taking the plunge.

Start by asking yourself why you want to go into business with your family or friend. If you’re wanting to do it primarily because so because you think it’ll be fun and it’s more of a hobby, then I would absolutely say –100% – go for it.

But… if this is a real business where you’re going to want to try to make money in the long run, then you need to be honest with yourself and ask yourself these three questions:

  1. Is this something that’s going to work?
  2. Is this something I believe in?
  3. Is this something I’d want to do even if it wasn’t with my family or friend?

If your answer is no to any of the above questions, then I would strongly consider not doing it.

If your reasons are a combination of both hobby and profit – yeah, you want to try to make a little money off it, but you’re really just doing it because you think it’ll be fun and it’s a fun little project to have – go for it.

If this is a serious thing and it’s going to be the main source of income for your family, then you have to be honest with yourself. And that is tough to do sometimes when you’re dealing with family and friends. You want to make the decision that is best for you and your loved one and think ahead about how going into business together could impact your most important relationships should something go wrong.

Filed Under: Stories Tagged With: Business Litigation, Partnerships

July 20, 2017 By Chris Handy

Partnership Ownership: The Most Important Advice I Can Offer

There are often many types of recurring patterns that you see in these business break ups. One of the most common is that there is a partner that is investing or owns the majority of the capital and another partner that is the talent and does most of the work.

For instance, partner X had started the business many years ago and sometime along the way hired partner Y as an employee. Partner Y was very talented and with his involvement the business began to grow significantly. Partner X and eventually made partner Y a 10% partner and over time partner X and partner Y would become 50/50 partners. Their overall business relationship consisted of multiple LLC and LPs.

There was a time when Partner X and Partner Y got along great, but over time that relationship deteriorated. Neither one wanted to work with the other, but their corporate documents did not provide for an adequate way to divide up the business and move on.

Probably the most important piece of advice I could offer is to retain your own individual counsel when formulating the partnership agreement. First of all, obviously an attorney can help offer insight on the legal ramifications of the partnership agreement. But also, again many of the conversations that you must have with your fellow partners when forming a business are awkward and uncomfortable. Attorneys can better work through these scenarios so that in the event things do go south, there will be a fair and adequate termination plan in place.

Filed Under: Stories Tagged With: Business Litigation

July 14, 2017 By Rob Henry

The Value of Legal Counsel When Forming a Partnership

Easily the most common things we see in business breakups is that the parties were not represented by their own counsel in the formation of the partnership. More often than not, the scenario is that one of the partners hires a lawyer to draft the partnership agreement. What the other partners do not realize is that this attorney is not representing them individually.

Depending on how the attorney was hired, he is either representing the partner that hired him or possibly the new potential entity. In either scenario that attorney could not represent the other partners in their individual capacity because there is a conflict of interest. That’s not to say that the attorney drafting the agreement is not capable of drafting a fair partnership agreement, but the other partners must understand that they are going into the transaction not represented.

Of course cost is often a deterrent in not wanting to retain individual counsel from the offset, and that is certainly understandable. But keep in mind, in the event that the partnership does go south, you will have no option but to retain counsel. Representation during the partnership break up will be far more costly than what it would have been had you retained counsel to help negotiate the agreement.

If you choose to go into the transaction not represented by counsel, than you must thoroughly review the partnership agreement and all relevant documents. Do your best to work through the different scenarios in the event things go south and what the best way to amicably resolve the matter would be.

In that Tarrant County Case, although the parties hired an attorney to draft all of their corporate documents. Neither retained private counsel. As a result the methods for terminating their partnership were not very well suited for their particular type of business and did account for certain issues that they faced.

The first thing that always comes to everyone’s mind is to just liquidate everything and everyone takes their proportionate share and moves on. While this may seem like a great idea, it’s never this simple. Winding down a business is very complex and it touches on many different areas of law. First of all, the entity exists separately from the partners. Just because one partner wants to leave the LLC or the LP does not mean he can just force it to shut down. The partner still has a duty of loyalty to the business and the other partners.

Second the tax consequences for liquidating and winding up a partnership or an LLC can be severe. If this is the option that you choose, you must consult a CPA and determine if you can afford the tax liability. If you can afford it, then in many cases this will be the best option to get everything wrapped up so you can move on with your life. Secondly depending on the property that the partnership owns, liquidating a straight liquidation can be tricky.

Another problem that can arise is lots of times the assets aren’t really the kind that can just be liquidated. For instance, let’s say in our hypothetical example that the the partnerships only meaningful assets are service contracts. The partners thought that they could just divide up those service contracts evenly between each other and start their own separate company. The problem that arose was that many of the clients did not like the partner that that they were assigned and were understandably less than thrilled to be in the middle of a nasty breakup. In this situation many of the clients canceled their service contracts and signed with the competitors. Obviously this will cause the value of the business to go down significantly.

Filed Under: Stories Tagged With: Business Litigation

May 17, 2017 By Bethany Handy

Responsible Third Parties | Proportionate Responsibility in the State of Texas

The 2011 amendments to the Texas Responsible third party law, while probably well intentioned have created a situation that is clearly at odds with the original intent of the responsible third party statute. Originally the idea behind the statute was to allow defendants the opportunity to have the jury apportion fault to parties who could not be made a party to the lawsuit. Usually these were instances where either the responsible third party could not be located or the Court lacked jurisdiction over the party. Also there are times when a party’s whereabouts are known and the Court has jurisdiction over the party, but there is very little incentive for the Defendant to bring that party in as a co party. These would be situations where the party is essentially judgment proof because the party lacks financial resources or insurance.

Over the years, the responsible third parties have morphed into essentially an unrepresented defendant that is effectively an empty chair for the defendant to point the finger. This is especially a problem when a Defendant designates a responsible third party after the applicable statute of limitations has run. Prior to 2011, if a Defendant designated a responsible third party after the Statute of Limitations had run, the Plaintiff was allowed to bring suit against that party so long as he did so within thirty days of the designation. “Under this scenario, all culpable parties were before the court, defending themselves, and accountable to the plaintiff for their percentage of responsibility,” thereby achieving “a carefully constructed scheme balancing the interests of both defendants and claimants.”

In 2011, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that the statute of limitations laws in Texas trumped the plaintiff’s ability to join a time barred responsible third party. The Court was deeply divided on the issue. The dissenting justices noted the strategic advantages that a Defendant gains by designating a responsible third party for purpose of shifting liability. If a plaintiff is not allowed to join a time barred responsible third party, it is forced to prove the liability of the defendant while simultaneously defending against an empty chair. This would disrupt the balance that the original responsible third party law had sought to maintain.

After the Court’s ruling, the legislature sought to address this issue and implemented a system that allows a for Defendants to designate responsible third party after the statute of limitations, so long as it has complied with its obligations to timely disclose that person as a responsible third party under the TRCP. The Texas Rules of Civil Procedure require that a Defendant must respond to a request from the Plaintiff to disclose the names of all possible responsible third party. Once the Plaintiff has sent the request and the Defendant has responded, the Defendant is under a duty to timely supplement these responses.

Although the new amendment may seem fair to everyone on its face, from a practical perspective it has made the situation worse. Defendants aren’t required to elaborate as to why the party is a possible responsible third party. Thus a wise Defendant will always disclose as many possible responsible third party as possible even if it has no evidence or reason to believe that the party has any culpability. Plaintiff is then put in a binned when the statute is about to run and it must decide whether or not to bring suit against the party listed as possible responsible third party or risk Defendant designated the responsible third party after the statute has run and risk having to defend an empty chair.

For instance, let’s say that a property owner hires a contractor to build an office building. The contractor hires an architect, structural engineer, electrician, a plumber, mechanical engineer, a roofer, and a framer. The building is complete and almost immediately upon taking position the owner notices that there is problems with leaks. The owner continual tries to repair the building and but after about a year and half there is a significant leak in the building that causes significant damage. The owner conducts an independent investigation and after about a month of due diligence the owner determines that the contractor, the plumber, and one of the other subcontractors are at fault and the owner brings suit. In this hypothetical let’s say that the owner filed suit about 22 months after the owner took possession. In construction defect cases like these the statute of limitations isn’t always so clear. Under this scenario it is possible that the statute of limitations begins to run when the owner took possession of the building.

The Contractor names all of the subcontractors as possible responsible third parties. But does not provide a reason. The owner can’t figure out what the other contractors possibly did wrong, so the owner declines to bring them into the suit. Three months later, the contractor designates all of the subcontractors as responsible third parties. Now the Plaintiff has too show liability against the Defendants but also must defend against the empty chair of the responsible third party.

Let’s say on the other hand that the Plaintiff decides to bring them into the litigation, even though he believes that the contractor and the other defendants are truly the culpable parties. Although this scenario is probably better for the Owner, there are obviously problems with expanding the scope of the litigation like this is the exact opposite of what the responsible third party were intended.

Filed Under: Stories Tagged With: Business Litigation

May 2, 2017 By Rob Henry

Methods of Terminating a Business Partnership

There are several ways to end a business partnership. The right method will be different for different situations and different parties.

One popular method for terminating a partnership is a buy/sell clause. In this method one partner will put out a number and the other partner has the option to either buy out the other partner or sell his interest for that amount. This is an effective and equitable method for terminating a partnership. But the problem in this scenario is that often times neither partner can afford to buy the other partner out.

Of course sometimes Court intervention is necessary when there is a break up of an entity or partnership. But it may surprise you to learn that often times a court’s power is very limited. This particularly true, if the business is profitable and still making money despite the fact that the principles are not getting along. A Court will typically not terminate an entity, simply because the partners do not get along.

Another issue that must be addressed in partnership agreements that has to do with the termination of partnerships or other business entities is the withdrawing partner’s ability to start a competing business or work for a competitor. It is important that the businesses have a non-compete agreement for their partners as well as a non-disclosure agreement protecting their confidential and proprietary information. Traditionally non competes were disfavored by public policy. The idea behind them being disfavored is that they hinder competition in the market place. Also Courts want to recognize that the withdrawing partner (for lack of a better term) has the right to make a living. But businesses have the right to expect that partners and high level employees won’t take certain confidential information to a rival business. Courts understand the competing interest at play and recently have showed more of a willingness to give more teeth to non-compete provisions so long as the follow certain parameters.

First of all, for a non-compete to be valid the person must have had access to some type of proprietary or confidential information on which is important to the viability of the business. This can be lots of different things. Obviously it could be something as complicated as a patent or other trade secret but also could be something as simple as a customer or potential contact list. For instance, if Walgreens attempted to enforce a noncompete agreement with a former cashier that recently took a job at CVS, a court would not hold that non-compete agreement enforceable because more than likely that cashier did not have access to any high level information at Walgreens.

Obviously when we are speaking of partners, we are more than likely talking about somebody who has access to confidential information of the business. But it is possible that a scenario could arise where there was a silent partner that was not involved in the operations. If that is the case then it is very well possible that a non-compete would have no effect on him. Regardless it is important that partnership agreements spell out and acknowledge that each partner is privy to certain “proprietary and confidential” information.

Second the clause must be reasonable as to the time and the geographic area. Generally five years for a non-compete is going to be about as long as a court will allow and that may be pushing it. You might be able to find an exception to this here and there but typically that is going to be the long end. I always recommend that the length of time be two to five years. Again at some point in time, the partnership needs to understand that former partner gets to move on with his life and start working again.

Third the clause must be reasonable as the geographic area. A business that primarily serves Dallas/Fort Worth metroplex can reasonably expect to have a non-compete agreement that prevents a partner from competing against them for their business in the metroplex, but a clause that would prevent them from engaging in a similar type of business throughout the entire state of Texas would more than likely get shot down. Generally what I recommend for this is to phrase the clause in terms of preventing the former partner from competing against the business in the same areas that he worked for on behalf of the partnership.

If you have specific questions regarding terminating a business relationship request a free evaluation by calling (817) 877-3303.

Filed Under: Stories Tagged With: Business Litigation

April 10, 2017 By Rob Henry

Business Break Ups: The Most Difficult Litigation

Should I have a business termination “prenup” with my partners?

I have had the privilege of working on many different types of cases involving many different areas of law. The most difficult litigation is business break ups.

These types of cases combine the intense emotion and hurt feelings of a divorce and also the complexity a commercial a large commercial dispute. Unfortunately many of these disputes would have been avoided had the parties taken the time to determine what to do in the event that somebody decides it is best to go there certain way.

The most important part of a business relationship or partnership agreement is how to effectively terminate the partnership or what to do when another principal or partner decides to leave.

Unfortunately, this is often the most overlooked clause of the agreement. More often than not, the agreement makes no mention of how to effectively wind down the entity.

When it does make mention, the clause is often boilerplate and the provisions laid out don’t really fit well for the business and do not account for certain foreseeable situations.

It is imperative that those individuals starting a new business thoroughly think through what to do in the event that one of the partners wants to leave the business.

The situation is of course most analogous to that of ending a marriage with an effective pre-nuptial or “prenup” agreement vs a divorce. A prenup is an agreement two people entered into before they get married that lays out how property will be divided in the event that the marriage.

Obviously there are two reasons why most people don’t get prenups. The first being, that when most people get married they are younger and don’t own any significant types of property or draw a significant income, so it is looked at as a waste of money. The other and more common reason is because it is an awkward conversation to have.

Of course, it’s this same awkwardness that is the main reason that business relationships often overlook their termination clauses. Typically at the beginning of any type of relationship all of the parties are full of hope and optimism and nobody wants to acknowledge that there is a chance that this might not work out.

More often than not, the people coming together have a previous relationship which leads them to believe that they will be able to resolve disputes amicably. Sadly, more often than not this isn’t the case.

Filed Under: Stories Tagged With: Business Litigation

Primary Sidebar

Featured Post

Personal Injuries: Assessing Damages

  You’ve been in an accident, and you were hurt. What’s next? The biggest question here is: were you hurt badly enough to ask for damages? In this article, we’ll discuss how to judge that. Medical Bills In every case, you should start with medical bills. This is the biggest indicator of whether you might want to look at damages. In Texas, computing those medical bills is interesting. … read more >>> about Personal Injuries: Assessing Damages

Personal Injury

Medical bills begin to pile up when you are seriously injured. This page is designed to help you evaluate your options for hiring a personal injury attorney. On This Page: Introduction to Personal Injury Frequently Seen Personal Injury Claims 18 Wheeler Collisions Premises Liability Car Accidents Catastrophic and Traumatic Brain Injury Wrongful Death Next … read more >>> about Personal Injury

Business Litigation

Get in touch with Rob Henry today for a free consultation. 675 N. Henderson St. Ste. 300 Fort Worth, Texas Call (817) 877-3303 Message me on: Facebook or Chat here on the site. … read more >>> about Contact Page

Footer

About Rob Henry

Hey! I'm Rob. I am a Personal Injury/Civil Trial Attorney based in the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex area. Specifically Fort Worth. I … Read More ... about Fort Worth’s Hometown Attorney

Address

675 N. Henderson St. Ste. 300
Fort Worth, Texas
Call (817) 877-3303
Message me on: Facebook or Chat here on the site.
Read my blog here.

Contact Rob Now

Get in touch with Rob Henry today for a free consultation. 675 N. Henderson St. Ste. 300 Fort Worth, Texas Call (817) … Click Here ... about Contact Page

  • Medical Malpractice
  • Business Litigation
  • Personal Injury

Copyright © 2021 · Powered by ConnectEngine · Log in