Commercial Leases – Essential Questions For A Prospective Tenant (Infographic)

A commercial lease can be an extremely onerous contract and expert legal advice is essential from the negotiation stage through to the point of signing the original lease and related documents.

We have highlighted below in the form of strategic questions some of the major issues upon which we advise our commercial clients.  These issues are of course of equal and reciprocal importance to a landlord or tenant property developer. Check the infographic below to learn more about the questions you need to ask a prospective tenant.

COMMERCIAL LEASES – ESSENTIAL QUESTIONS FOR A PROSPECTIVE TENANT INFO-GRAPHIC

Whilst every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information contained in this article, it has been provided for information purposes only and is not intended to constitute legal advice. Amorys Solicitors is a boutique commercial and private client law firm in Sandyford, Dublin 18, Ireland.
For further information and advice in relation to “Commercial Leases – Essential Questions For A Prospective Tenant”, please contact Deirdre Farrell, partner, Amorys Solicitors deirdre@amoryssolicitors.com, telephone 01 213 5940 or your usual contact at Amorys.

Tax Considerations when Buying a Business

The tax structure of a business acquisition can be the deciding factor when assessing the merits of buying a business.

Broadly speaking business purchase transactions take the form of either a share or an asset purchase and both differ widely in terms of what tax considerations come in to play.

A Buyer could also buy shares from a ‘hived-down’ new company to which the Seller has transferred only the assets a Buyer would like to buy.  This structure is a combination of both a share sale and an asset sale but from the Buyer’s perspective it would be a share purchase.

Each buy-out structure has different tax implications for a Buyer and Seller.

A Seller may want a business sale to take place by way of a share sale so that he receives funds directly and is only chargeable to capital gains tax on the difference between the sales price of the shares and their base cost.  A Buyer may wish to purchase assets of a business only so that she does not inherit latent gains on assets (see below) or potential outstanding tax liabilities of a the target company.  Below is a ‘bird’s eye view’ of the tax considerations arising for a buyer in a share and separately, an asset, purchase transaction.  Our next article will deal with the tax aspects from the point of view of a seller.

What tax considerations do I need to be aware of if I am buying shares in a target company?

  1. Stamp duty: Stamp duty costs in such a transaction are generally lower as shares are subject to 1% stamp duty on their market value whilst assets are subject to a rate of up to 2% in some cases.  However, in cases of a share sale there is less flexibility to reduce the stamp duty, e.g. by arranging for certain assets to transfer by delivery.
  2. Exposure for hidden tax liabilities of a target company:
    This is generally a principal concern for a Buyer when buying a company.  Logically, a Buyer does not want to be liable for tax liabilities of a company that arose during a period for which s/he was not in control.   The longer the target company has been in existence, the greater the risk that there are hidden or undocumented tax liabilities for which the Company may be found liable at a later stage.
    The main objective for a Buyer is to ensure that a target company is ‘clear’ from any hidden taxation liabilities arising from for example, failure to file returns and pay penalties arising therefrom, failure to correctly account for value added tax (VAT), incorrectly claiming reliefs, etc.  Researching into these areas is called ‘due diligence’ and is a central component to any business acquisition.  Tax due diligence will help establish the purchase price and the type of tax warranties and indemnities to be included in the share sale agreement amongst other things.
    The advantage from a tax perspective of using the ‘hived down’ structure referred to above is that the new ‘hived down’ company would have a short tax history which would mean less risk for a Buyer for hidden tax liabilities.
  3. Exposure for Latent gains on the sale of company assets in the future: In a share purchase transaction, the assets of the target company retain their original cost price.  This means that if/when the Buyer (through the target company) sells its assets it will have to pay corporation or capital gains tax on the difference between the sale price of that asset and the original cost of purchase (if any).  If the original cost of purchase of that asset is less than its market value on the date of acquisition of the target company, the Buyer will be liable to pay tax on that ‘latent’ gain if it subsequently sells those assets for greater than or equal to the market value on the date it acquired the company.  Latent gains could therefore reduce the value of a Buyer’s interest in the target company if they are not considered at the outset of a transaction.

What tax considerations do I need to be aware of if I am buying assets from a target company?

  1. No exposure for latent gains on the sale of target company assets  : In an asset purchase transaction, a Buyer acquires the assets at their market value at the date of sale and avoids potential exposure to latent gains referred to above.  A Seller would more than likely prefer a share sale to avoid having to pay capital gains tax, having regard to the fact that its members would be subject to further tax (income or dividend withholding tax) when extracting the sale proceeds from the selling company.
  2. No exposure for hidden tax liabilities : In an asset buyout, hidden tax liabilities can be left behind in the target company without requiring the Buyer to rely on detailed warranties which may prove unrecoverable from the Seller at a later time (because of its liquidation or exit from Ireland).
  3. Value Added Tax liability on assets purchased:  A Buyer may need to pay value added tax at 13.5% on the value of the assets – for example commercial property which has been developed in the past two years or remains in the ‘VAT Net’.  If the Buyer is not registered for VAT or cannot reclaim VAT paid, it remains an additional cost of the transaction.  In many situations it is possible for a Buyer to pay VAT on the purchase of an asset and reclaim it on the same day resulting in a cash neutral position but each Buyer every situation is unique and detailed advices are required in this regard.
  4. Tax advantages of purchasing premises directly in the name of the Buyer: There may be tax advantages to a Buyer purchasing real property of a business directly and for him/her/them to grant a commercial lease to the target company. A buyer should enquire with their advisers as to the tax benefits of doing so before executing any Share Sale and Purchase Agreement.

As you will see from our next article there are many competing objectives from a tax perspective for both a buyer and a seller in a business acquisition.

There are many ways in which Amorys Solicitors can be of assistance to a prospective Buyer in a business purchase transaction.  We advise on all aspects of merger and acquisition transactions for Small to Medium Enterprises (SMEs) including advice in relation to the form and structure of an acquisition or buy-out, carrying out due diligence and drafting corporate contracts including Share Sale and Purchase, and separately, Asset Sale and Purchase Agreements. If you would like further information in relation to any of the above please contact Deirdre Farrell, partner, Amorys Solicitors deirdre@amoryssolicitors.com, telephone 01 213 5940 or your usual contact at Amorys.

Whilst every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information contained in this article, it has been provided for information purposes only and is not intended to constitute legal advice. Amorys Solicitors is a boutique commercial and private client law firm in Sandyford, Dublin 18, Ireland.

Auctioneer’s Liability for Sales Brochure Clarified

On 1st June 2017 the Supreme Court delivered a long-awaited judgment in David Walsh v Jones Lang LaSalle, 2017 overturning a previous decision of the High Court to hold an auctioneering firm liable in damages to a purchaser for inaccurate and misleading measurements contained in a sales brochure.  The decision will no doubt be welcome for auctioneering and estate agent firms alike as it places the onus firmly on purchasers to verify details in a sales brochure when there is a disclaimer contained therein.

The Facts

Mr Walsh, who had 20 years’ experience in the property market at the time claimed his offer to purchase a two-storey north Dublin city centre commercial property was based on a “back of an envelope” calculation of the rent he would receive calculated on a value per square foot basis by reference to the measurements contained in the selling agent’s sales brochure. Mr Walsh’s offer was accepted and he completed the purchase of the property.  However it subsequently transpired that the actual floor area of the property was overstated by approximately 20% in the sales brochure.  Mr Walsh claimed damages for misrepresentation in tort against the auctioneering firm on the basis that it breached a duty of care to him to ensure that the sales brochure was accurate.

The Sales Brochure /The Disclaimer

The following paragraph, disclaiming liability, was included in small print at the bottom of the front page of the Sales Brochure:

“Whilst every care has been taken in preparation of these particulars, and they are believed to be correct, they are not warranted and intending purchasers/ lessees should satisfy themselves as to the correctness of the information given.”

The agent sought to rely on the waiver in the brochure and in addition argued that irrespective of the sales brochure it did not owe a duty of care to the purchaser as there was insufficient ‘proximity’ or closeness of relationship between the two parties.

The High Court Decision

In 2007 the High Court found the auctioneering firm owed Mr Walsh a duty of care to ensure that measurements in the sales brochure were correct and found that the terms of the disclaimer were inadequate to exonerate the firm from liability.

The selling agent appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court Decision

In finding that the auctioneering firm was not liable to Mr Walsh for economic loss caused by negligent misstatement three judges of the Supreme Court held that the selling agent did not owe a duty of care to Mr Walsh as Jones Lang LaSalle Limited did not assume responsibility for ensuring that the dimensions described in the sales brochure were correct.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in law in holding that the disclaimer inferred that Jones Lang LaSalle assumed responsibility for details in the brochure and that the disclaimer was inadequate to exclude that liability.

Regarding the Sales Brochure and the disclaimer therein Ms Justice Laffoy of the Supreme Court stated:

“Where the person giving the information in so doing has expressly included a disclaimer in the brochure or advertisement, in my view, the core issue in determining whether a duty of care exists is whether the existence of the disclaimer by reference to its terms has the effect that there is no assumption of responsibility for the task for furnishing correct information on the part of the estate agent giving information to the recipient.”

“…. there was no assumption of responsibility on the part of JLL in relation to the task of furnishing the accurate internal measurements to Mr Walsh and that the consequence was that the law imposed no duty of care on JLL.”

Comments

The decision is a welcome clarification of the law in this area which up until now was uncertain. Prior to the Supreme Court judgment, it was not clear how far a selling agent’s duty of care to a purchaser reached in the sales campaign process or indeed how or to what extent a selling agent could disclaim that liability. Now it is clear that a selling agent will not be held liable for loss caused by incorrect particulars contained in a sales brochure where a waiver included.  Even where no disclaimer is made available the decision is authority for enabling a selling agent to avoid liability for inaccuracies contained in a sales brochure (even contained on a website) on the basis that it would not be ‘fair and reasonable’ to hold that a duty of care is owed given that a sales brochure is generally made publicly available.

Whilst every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information contained in this article, it has been provided for information purposes only and is not intended to constitute legal advice. Amorys Solicitors is a boutique commercial and private client law firm in Sandyford, Dublin 18, Ireland.
For further information and advice in relation to “Auctioneer’s Liability for Sales Brochure Clarified”, please contact Deirdre Farrell, partner, Amorys Solicitors deirdre@amoryssolicitors.com, telephone 01 213 5940 or your usual contact at Amorys.

Shopping For Better Value …

Rent Review

Dunnes Stores is the latest commercial tenant to gain savings on a court interpretation of a rent review clause which its landlord claimed to have been “upwards only”.  On Tuesday, 14th May last, the Circuit Court granted the retail giant a 32% reduction in rent to be paid for the occupation of retail floor space on Georges Street, Dublin 2 and a 50% reduction of rent to be paid for the occupation of basement storage and office and ancillary space at the same location.

Readers may be familiar with a judgment of the High Court handed down in March of this year which had the effect of reducing the rent Bewleys Café was paying for occupying its retail outlet on Grafton Street for the five year period beginning January 2012.  In that case, the landlord, Ickendel Limited, also claimed that a rent review clause in the lease with Bewleys Café (which was dated 22nd September 1987) was “upwards only”.

The judgment in the Bewleys case is valuable to both commercial tenants and landlords as it offers an insight into a court’s approach to the interpretation of a rent review clause in a commercial lease where there is a dispute between the parties.

It is noteworthy that the judgment in the Bewleys case recognised established jurisprudence which declines to rewrite the terms of a lease simply because they are unfair to a party e.g. a tenant who is unable to pay the rent because of the economic downturn or because the tenant might go out of business as a result of rent being or becoming payable at an amount higher than market value.

The Bewleys decision also reflects the fact that the parties to a commercial lease have negotiated and agreed same at arms length, often with the benefit of legal advice and that therefore they should be bound by the terms of the lease which records that agreement. In addition, the Court emphasised that certainty is essential to the successful operation of commercial agreements and that parties to an agreement should be confident not only that the terms of a commercial agreement will withstand judicial scrutiny but also that such terms will not be rewritten by a court.

In the Bewleys case, the previous rent review which took place in 2007 fixed an annual rent of €1,463,964.   A dispute arose when the rent was being reviewed in 2012.

The rent review clause in the lease provided that the new rent on a review should be the higher of either the rent payable during the “preceding period” or the current market rent.  The question for the Court was – what period was the “preceding period”? Was it the:-

immediately preceding period i.e. the period from 2007 to 2012 in which circumstances the new rent for the period 2012 to 2017 would have remained at €1,463,964 per annum due to deflation in property prices;

or

the period beginning on the date of the lease in 1987, in which circumstances the rent for the period 2012 to 2017 would be the greater of the 1987 rent or current market rent?

The rent in 1987 was €218,000 per annum and it was submitted by counsel for Bewleys during the hearing that current market rent would be less than half the rent fixed in 2007.

Thankfully for Bewleys’ coffee consumers, the Court’s answer was based on paragraph 2 above.  The Judge did not however fix the amount of the new rent and left this to be dealt with by the parties.

It must be emphasised that whilst this case has set an important precedent, it was decided on its own facts and cannot be considered as a general rule.   The outcome of every case will depend on the wording of the particular rent review clause. It is anticipated however that many leases contain rent review clauses with similar wording to that in the Bewleys case hence the importance of that decision.  The case is currently under appeal to the Supreme Court and a final decision is awaited with great interest.
Quite apart from the dramatic effect of the decision on the commercial property market, it highlights the necessity for attention to detail when drafting commercial leases so to avoid uncertainty with consequent legal and other professional costs.

Update

Last Wednesday, 15th May 2013, the High Court found that a rent review clause in a lease made between Tanat Limited as landlord and the Medical Council as tenant was in fact an “upwards only” rent review clause.   In that case the High Court held that the clause in question should be interpreted to mean that the rent payable under the lease did not fall below the rent payable for the preceding period which rent was €820,000 per annum.  It was noted that the market rent payable under the lease was €374,100 per. annum.  This case demonstrates the importance of the actual wording of the clause and acts as a reminder that all cases will be decided on their own facts.  In cases where the wording is clear the Courts will enforce an “upwards only” rent review clause notwithstanding the hardship this may cause to a tenant.

NB:  Since the commencement of section 132 of the Land and Conveyancing Reform Act 2009 (“the 2009 Act”) on 28 February 2010, “upwards only” rent review clauses in leases created afterthat date are to be construed as meaning that rent payable following such review may be fixed at an amount which is less than, equal to or greater than the amount of rent payable immediately prior to the date on which the rent falls to be renewed.

That section means that in the post 2009 Act era, even if a rent review clause is drafted in terms similar to those contained in the Tanat/ Medical Council case, the rent may nevertheless be reduced, remain unchanged or increased.  It is not possible for the parties to contract out of the application of this section.

Food for thought, and fodder for lawyers!

Whilst every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information contained in this article, it has been provided for information purposes only and is not intended to constitute legal advice. Amorys Solicitors is a boutique commercial and private client law firm in Sandyford, Dublin 18, Ireland.
For further information and advice in relation to “Shopping For Better Value”, please contact Deirdre Farrell, partner, Amorys Solicitors deirdre@amoryssolicitors.com, telephone 01 213 5940 or your usual contact at Amorys.

AIB Mortgage Information Evening

A Sign of “Green Shoots”?

AIB Sandyford recently held a very informative mortgage information evening to which we were invited to “set out our stall”.  Happily, recent trends appear to suggest that property sales and prices in Dublin are at last on the up with green shoots finally appearing within the property sector.

We are pleased to say that as a result of our advertising campaign at the mortgage evening we are now representing a number of AIB clients in the purchase of their new home and we would like to take this opportunity of thanking AIB Sandyford for their support. You can read more here http://issuu.com/robheigh/docs/dundrum_d5aa57751b0923/7

Amorys Solicitors is a boutique commercial and private client law firm in Sandyford, Dublin 18, Ireland.
If you are thinking of buying a property, whether residential or commercial, please contact Deirdre Farrell, partner, Amorys Solicitors deirdre@amoryssolicitors.com, telephone 01 213 5940 or your usual contact at Amorys for a very competitive quote.  We will be very happy to assist

Pin It on Pinterest