Interesting focus lately on a couple of areas that relate to M&A in this environment; companies are getting more creative about deals and thereby run the risk of triggering tax issues that weren’t as prevalent in the bull market days. We wrote about this last week in TheDeal.com (check out the article called “Dealing with the Code“), and it seems to be top of mind in other areas as well.

Most recognized is the use of net operating losses (NOLs) to offset taxes and make deals more attractive; the inherent value of NOLs is earning some attention as companies take major steps to protect them.  This is outlined in TheDeal.com article but also highlighted in a recent piece from CFO Magazine about GM’s bankruptcy plans.  As the magazine writes,

the IRS substantially curbs the amount of NOLs that can be used when there’s a change of ownership. In that way, the government prevents corporations from buying loss companies just to latch on to NOLs for their accompanying tax benefits…[but] bailout plans can’t limit the taxable income of companies benefiting from them.

The historically difficult environment is giving rise to exceptions like this and to opportunities for acquiring companies to get creative with the way they structure deals.  Dealflow might be slow, but it’s still moving and knowing how tax issues can help or hurt transactions will be key as we close in on the latter half of 2009.

On Tuesday, September 23rd, the Financial Management Association of New Hampshire (”FMA of NH”) hosted its first event entitled “Preparing for a Successful Liquidity Event in Today’s Volatile Markets“.  I am fortunate to be among the founders of FMA of NH and to have had the opportunity to participate in the panel discussion on this very timely topic.  Peter Alternative and Bas van der Brugge of Mirus Capital started the evening’s discussion with a recap of the current market environment for merger and IPO activity, and touched on the availability of funds from the venture and investment community.  Steven Bell, Senior Director of Finance at venture-backed Vertica Systems, Inc., also particpated on the panel and gave his corporate perspective of deal activity and funding availability [in the way of full disclosure, Vertica is also an MFA client].

The evening’s discussion has me thinking more and more about this topic.  Let’s make no bones about it - the IPO market quite clearly is closed for the time being and we don’t expect to see any liquidity from that market in the near term.  Similarly, our guests from Mirus painted a pretty bleak picture on the M&A front.  However, there was a contrast worthy of note, and I continue to see anecdotal evidence in the market that suggests that all is not lost.  For example, one might think that this is not the time to be raising new money from venture or angel investors.  But as Steve fairly pointed out, companies like Vertica that have a solid business strategy, sound leadership team, and a market solution that customers are clamoring for, can still raise equity with relative ease.

(more…)

New M&A guidelines under FAS141R are taking effect in 2009, and there’s been some talk about how it might impact the deal process. In fact, this Accounting Today article cites a study by Deloitte that concludes “out of more than 1,850 executives, 40 percent said the revised standard would cause them to rethink deal strategy or have an impact on their planned deal activity.”

This doesn’t surprise me, as some of the pending changes will have a destabilizing effect on post-merger balance sheets. However, I also feel strongly that accounting challenges should never hold back a strategically sound deal. The accounting, valuation and auditing experts simply need to adjust to the new guidelines and structure deals accordingly – not forego or delay them.

Here are some of the significant changes headed our way:

1. Timing of deals and reporting

FAS141R provides a more stringent timeline for reporting business combinations, and if deadlines are missed then provisional amounts must be reported for incomplete terms. That means not having the most qualified information, which can lead to more serious issues down the road. Expanded disclosure requirements will make the deadlines even more difficult to meet and could force companies to speed through the process, so prioritize the planning process and have the right team in place early to avoid sacrificing quality and accuracy for speed.

2. Contingent consideration

The purchase price of a business combination now includes the fair value of contingent considerations. This change could significantly increase the upfront purchase price recorded on deal transactions, as well as increase the volatility of subsequent accounting. Given the major uncertainties as to future amounts and timing of payments of the contingent payment, the fair value of this liability may materially fluctuate over time as more information is obtained.

3. In-process R&D

Under previous regulations, companies could record the fair value of IPR&D as a period cost of a transaction. FAS141R, however, requires that it be recorded as an intangible asset on the balance sheet. If the IPR&D does not come to fruition, it will subsequently need to be written down to its fair value, potentially zero, resulting in an impairment charge to the income statement.

These changes and others will bring us closer to international standards, and they will in the end make for a clearer picture of deals. We’ll take a more in-depth look at FAS141R in an upcoming MFA Perspectives article, and we encourage you to check it out when it’s posted on our Thought Leadership page.