When you want to start a business, particularly a small one on a small scale, you will be faced with what I call the founder’s quagmire. You will have to decide whether you would own the business alone or whether you will give shares of your business to other people (partners). If you choose to give away shares of your business, you would need to decide how many shares you would give away and the terms upon which you would give them away.
First of all, you need to understand that there are rights attached to shares, particularly voting rights. The fact that you have the most shares in your company does not necessarily mean that you have full control of your company. Therefore, in determining how many shares to give away, you should also narrow down the number of people you give shares to as each shareholder ordinarily has a voting right.
At a company meeting, by virtue of your ordinary shares you are ordinarily entitled to just ONE vote. This means if your company has 4 shareholders with you owning 70% of the shares and the other three persons owning 10% each, there would be 4 members of the company with rights to 4 votes. If a decision you made comes to a vote and the 3 other members of the company vote against you, your decision would not stand.
This is why founders should be reluctant to give away ordinary shares unless they have carefully chosen their partners. Founders should also ensure that they seek legal advice on the appropriate type of shares to give the persons they want to involve in their business. Shareholders agreements are useful in situations like this to ensure that the founder retains a certain level of control over the business and the decision making powers in respect of the company.
It is not necessary that all the shares you wish to give away to potential partners are given to them instantly. There are ways you can set conditions for vesting shares which would require the potential partners to reach milestones before the shares are vested in them. In the alternative, you can create different classes of shares within your business and only award a certain type of shares to the potential partners.
Before you give away shares of your business ask yourself these questions:
- How many shares do I want to give away?
- What type of shares do I want to give away?
- When do I want to give the shares away?
- How much control of my business do I want to retain?
- How many shares do I want to retain for future investors.
These questions will get you off to a good start in determining the correct ‘share formula’ for your business.
Written by: Morenike George-Taylor is a qualified Legal Practitioner that graduated from the University of Sheffield at the top of her class. She has several years of experience practicing in leading law firm owned by a Senior Advocate of Nigeria and now owns her own business which focuses on solving the legal problems facing SMES and Start-ups called Reni Legal.
Developments in competition law in post-pandemic Africa
Image Credit: Getty Images/iStockphoto
With the growth of economies across Africa, competition law has remained one of the key drivers for effective market participation, consumer protection and fair business practices. However, the global pandemic introduced new challenges for competition authorities in Africa and abroad, with each enforcer pursuing the most beneficial enforcement method for its national or regional jurisdiction.
According to Lerisha Naidu, Partner in Baker McKenzie’s Competition & Antitrust Practice in Johannesburg, “These efforts were aimed at curbing the persistence of unjustified price hikes, anti-competitive cooperation between competitors and other harmful business practices that sought to undermine competition. In addition to the urgent responses to the unprecedented impacts of the global COVID-19 crisis, competition authorities in countries and regions across Africa continued to introduce new laws and amend existing legislation as a sign of the rapidly increasing prioritisation of competition law enforcement on the continent.”
Competition authorities across the continent had already established strategies for maintaining competition and limiting instances of customer exploitation in their respective countries by early March 2020.
“Competition authorities in Kenya, Malawi, Mauritius, Namibia, Nigeria and South Africa reacted quickly to pandemic impacts by introducing new guidelines and regulations,” noted Angelo Tzarevski, a senior associate in Baker McKenzie’s Competition Practice in Johannesburg.
Amendments to existing laws
Various jurisdictions have recently strengthened their competition law regimes by way of amendments to the existing legislation or by introducing entirely new laws to facilitate their enforcement efforts.
“For example, Botswana’s Competition Act came into force at the end of 2018. Kenya recently introduced a host of new laws, guidelines and rules that relate to buyer power, the valuation of assets in merger transactions, block exemption of certain mergers from notification, merger thresholds and filing fees, market definition, and new guidelines for the determination of administrative penalties. Ghana’s Draft Competition Bill is currently before parliament awaiting passage into law, and Egypt and Mauritius amended their competition legislation by introducing or giving effect to new provisions and regulations. In South Africa, price discrimination and buyer power provisions that were previously introduced by the Competition Amendment Act have since come into effect. Regulations were also issued to facilitate the interpretation and application of these provisions,” said Tzarevski.
In addition to country-specific regulation, a number of regional competition regulators in Africa are impacting domestic markets. Such regulators include the West African Economic Monetary Union (WAEMU), the East African Community (EAC), the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA), the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and the Economic and Monetary Community of Central Africa (CEMAC). While not a regional regulator, the African Competition Forum, an association of African competition agencies, promotes competition policy awareness in Africa and the adoption of competition policies and laws. The Forum also facilitates regular contact between authorities, creating a platform for the sharing of best practice and domestic competition trends.
“African competition law continues to develop at a rapid pace, boosted by the implementation of protective strategies necessary during the peak of the pandemic. An increasing number of jurisdictions have adopted laws and regulations, established authorities, secured membership to regional antitrust regimes and ramped-up enforcement of suspected violations of prevailing competition laws at both domestic and regional levels.
As such, organisations transacting across borders in Africa must ensure they are compliant with a myriad of local and intersecting regional competition laws to avoid facing the wrath of the continent’s competition authorities. Access to standardised, cross-border information on the latest competition law developments in Africa has become essential for those transacting in the region,” added Naidu.
Baker McKenzie recently produced a comprehensive guide covering the latest developments in African competition law in 25 countries across the continent – An Overview of Competition & Antitrust Regulations and Developments in Africa: 2021
By Angela Matthewson for Baker McKenzie Johannesburg
Tiyani Majoko: New York City based legaltech startup Founder on 10 years in the legal industry
Tiyani Majoko is a lawyer and the Co-founder of New York City based legaltech startup Anü, a legal services marketplace. She is experienced in product design, identifying customer segments (user and buyer personas), data analysis and Agile. Tiyani talks to Alaba Ayinuola on her 10 years journey in the legal industry, starting from Biglaw, to in-house counsel, to running a small firm, to starting a legal tech company and I am always exploring something new. Excerpt.
In the beginning:
Life in Biglaw
On 3 January 2011, I pulled up to 22 Fredman Drive which were the offices of Eversheds (now Hogan Lovells). It was my first day at work as a Candidate Attorney, a 2-year journey as an apprentice in a law firm which culminates with passing the attorney bar/board exams. I bounced out of bed both nervous and excited that I was taking the first step in my career. I asked my dad to help me iron my outfit for the day; white shirt and black slacks, then I tied back my dreadlocks and put on my sensible black heels that he had bought me.
My dad, who is also a lawyer, was visibly beaming that I had been selected as a Candidate Attorney at an international law firm and I was following his footsteps. He had taken 2 weeks off to help me furnish my apartment, get comfortable with the route to work (though I didn’t have a driver’s license yet) and settle into my new life as a solicitor. Then he returned to his own law firm and practice in Zimbabwe.
At the end of orientation week, I knew the law firm life was not for me. I started my first 8 months rotation in a litigation team, where the only highlight of that rotation was the team and free lunches at advocates chambers. During that rotation I may or may not have forgotten to go to court to note a judgment. The daily time sheets, indexing and pagination of court files, carting files up and down to advocates offices for a 0.4 time entry and forced interactions at month end drinks were the bane of my existence. People would look forward to, or dread, the month end billing report as it revealed who was rising or bubbling under budget.
It was only later when I learned what really matters isn’t what you bill, but what you invoice and eventually collect!
I also learned about office politics and the power players of the firm if you wanted to be offered a position as an associate at the end your 2 year period as a Candidate Attorney.
The rainmaker whose team operated by its own rules (coming in at 10am and leaving at 4pm), the partner who had been at the firm all his 40 year career, the partners who struggled to make budget and how we all tried to stay away from them because they wouldn’t be in a position to retain you as an associate. There was also the partner who never took on a female or black associates, the partner who only took on LGBTQ associates and so I made a concerted effort to join the team of the partner who only took on Black associates.
She ran the mining team, working with international mining companies in helping them to obtain and retain their licenses to operate. This was the first time I felt like I was doing something I enjoyed- it was an all Black, female team. We would go on long road trips to visit mining clients, communities or regulators. I got to spend a lot of time out of the office- away from my time sheet, going to mines and meeting regulators- often these trips would allow for some sight seeing, such as visiting the Big Hole in Kimberly and going underground in a coal mine.
“As a mining lawyer I felt like I was doing something important by contributing to the development of communities. I got my first glimpse into politics in the wave of Marikana, investigating unsafe working conditions, developing environmental plans for rehabilitating mine property, working with corporate executives to understand their strategy and the adrenalin of speeding down the N1 from Joburg to Pretoria to meet arbitrary regulator deadlines for various submissions.“
I loved the centrality of the role and how each matter brought new challenges.
Each client had a different problem and the partner I worked for gave us free rein on matters. This built my professional confidence to execute and communicate as a professional. Although she would manage the relationship with the client, I would send the emails, they clients would call me if they had questions, etc. My criticism of the team was that it was too familial for a work environment and we could have used more intelligent tools to track matters, create reports and be efficient- which would have helped us to bill more. In 2013 the Black bubble was burst and the gang broke up.
Throughout my career I wanted to maintain that feeling of being connected to people, processes and policies while creating a product that’s profitable.
After Biglaw, I tried a couple of different things. I went in-house in an oil and gas company, where my boss lived in Durban and I was based in Joburg- so basically I have been remote since 2013. It was my first time working alone, after being accustomed to an office with 400 lawyers. I had to learn to trust my work, be thorough, do research and create my own support network of mentors. I was running legal and business affairs- so I would put together decks, find co-investors on projects and lead meetings after a short phone call with him. He was part of the young, new money Black elite that had made money from government contracts and had former President Jacob Zuma on speed dial. He opened my eyes to a whole class of Black, young, rich entrepreneurs that traveled to Bali on private jets. In those environments I quickly learned how political favor is volatile and qualifications to do the work are optional. At the time Zuma was ousted, a lot of them- including my boss- went broke.
I was 5 years into my career and had been disappointed by employers, so I made a bet on myself. I had some savings, worked out a rent free living situation and talked my varsity best friend into starting one of the first legal consulting firms in South Africa. I learned about finding clients, keeping clients, expanding revenue streams, business models, leadership, networking and expansion. We were so adorable when we started, see our launch video below.
I also launched Africa’s first lawyer on demand service. As a founder, I was able to find that feeling again, but I quickly realized that our service was too manual for scale in a way that mattered. Part of it was not knowing what tools we could use for a small services focused businesses and as I set my sights on moving away from a lifestyle business- I knew that technology would essential to our success. I was 8 years into my career at this point, running a good profitable company and contemplating the hard pivot to grad school in a foreign country, with a 6 figure price tag.
Ultimately I made the decision and attended Cornell with the vision of going back to my business then things changed. Instead, I become a founder- again- which I wrote about here.
While in school I thought of becoming a Product Manager, however it wasn’t presented to the law students as a career option, it was solely for Engineers and MBAs. Initially, I didn’t care because I didn’t understand most technical terms and I was just trying to keep up with my own course work. In January 2020, the blitz interview season was upon us, the technical students and MBAs were filling up their diaries so fast and law students were high key scrambling. I started to look at the PM job requirements and I was like “Hey, I know this stuff.. well some of it.” I went to the career services office like:
I have always been of the opinion that whatever an MBA graduate can do; a lawyer can do- just with a calculator.
I was benched very hard and told to stay in my lane- to look for roles in legal tech companies- maybe doing business development, or sales if I no longer wanted to practice law.
If the school didn’t see what I saw for myself, then I had to make it happen. All this was happening on the backdrop of a Coronavirus outbreak, BLM protests and many graduates being unable to find work. I half-heartedly applied for jobs, while I turned my full attention to a class project that had some real-world traction. When I went full time with Anü, I looked at this as an opportunity to do 2 things — either run a successful tech startup or have enough skills to rebrand myself as a PM. Either way I was setting myself up to win.
My 5th pivot is loading as I am staring down another path. It’s less scary because I have learned how to get good at taking wild bets on myself adaptability. In contrast, my father has been a lawyer his entire life. He graduated from law school 32 years ago, each year he has renewed his practicing license and I honestly envy him for finding the thing he is good at, that he also enjoys. I enjoy certain aspects of the law, but not all the ways that it is practiced. I need room to experiment, to be playful and to also not always follow precedent. I am extremely blessed because my dad has supported these expeditions. Now it’s time for his investment to pay off.
5 Tips on Making Career Pivots
- Create A Big Vision for Your Life.
- Be Intentional About Skills To Acquire.
- Know Your Core Competency.
- Network Like Crazy.
- Community (I created The Legal Werk for mid-career legal professionals who want to make a pivot, switch, climb or reset their careers to have a source of support.) If you want to join us sign up for updates here.
- Know Your Tolerance for Pain.
- Have Faith.
Derivatives: Enforceability of Close out Netting in Nigeria
By: Olayemi Anyanechi, Managing Partner at Sefton Fross
The Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA 2020) is a game changer for derivative transactions in Nigeria. It introduces innovative provisions that will impact financial collateral arrangements typically used by parties involved in derivative trading. This article will examine the novel provisions introduced by CAMA 2020 as it relates to financial collateral arrangements.
An examination of financial collateral arrangements under the CAMA 2020
Until recently, the enforceability of derivative transactions in Nigeria had lingering questions. This was mainly due to the uncertainty over enforcement of the close out netting provisions. To mitigate this, counterparties were typically advised to pursue the Automatic Early Termination route.
Netting is a reconciliation and payment mechanism which involves the aggregation and conversion of mutual payment obligations into a single claim, so that the party owing the greater aggregate amount makes a net payment to the party owing the lesser aggregate amount. Forms of netting include contractual/settlement, insolvency and close-out netting.
Netting under extant Nigerian laws
Prior to CAMA 2020, Nigerian laws supported contractual netting and insolvency netting.
Insolvency netting is a mandatory right of set-off that arises when a company goes into liquidation. It is automatic and applies at the date on which the liquidation commences
Insolvency netting is recognised under the provisions on mutual credit and set-off in section 33 of the Bankruptcy Act 1 and implied by reference in the previous CAMA 2. Section 33 of the Bankruptcy Act provides that where there has been mutual credits, mutual debts or other mutual dealings between a debtor and any other person claiming to prove a debt in the debtor’s liquidation, an account of what is due from one party to the other in respect of such mutual dealing and the sum due shall be set off against any sum due from the other party and the balance of the account and no more shall be claimed or paid on either side respectively. Thus, it required the claim and cross claims to be between the same parties in the same right.
Contractual or settlement netting is the netting of reciprocal deliveries or payments which are due on the same date. It provides for mutual payment obligations of contracting parties to be discharged by a single net payment obligation from one party to the other. This form of netting addresses the risk presented when parties’ obligations are not performed simultaneously, particularly where payment obligations are in the same currency to be performed on the same date. It assesses the parties’ mutual payment obligations and requires physical payment only from one of the parties, usually the one with the larger debt.
Close-out netting on the other hand, is typically employed to minimise the risk of exposure to an insolvent counterparty. It applies to contracts having different settlement dates and results in dealings between the counterparties coming to a close.
Prior to CAMA 2020, insolvency netting was mandatory and it was not possible to enforce certain provisions under such agreements after the commencement of winding up without a court order. This was because under Nigerian law, any disposition of the property of the company made after the commencement of the winding up shall, unless the court otherwise orders, be void.
Furthermore, in line with the provisions of section 499 of the erstwhile CAMA, where the termination of obligations under netting agreements do not occur prior to commencement of winding up, the liquidator may have been able to “cherry-pick” and require the performance of contracts that he deemed beneficial while disclaiming the onerous contracts.
New close out netting provisions
CAMA 2020 now recognises and provides a legal framework for termination and close-out netting.
Close out netting is defined under CAMA 2020 to include the occurrence of “the termination, liquidation or acceleration of any payment or delivery obligation or entitlement under one or more qualified financial contracts entered into under a netting agreement”. Netting agreements are recognised to include a ‘master netting agreement’, a ‘master-master netting agreement’, and a ‘collateral arrangement’.
Section 721 of CAMA 2020 further provides that:
(1) “The provisions of a netting agreement is enforceable in accordance with their terms, including against an insolvent party, and, where applicable, against a guarantor or other person providing security for a party and shall not be stayed, avoided or otherwise limited by-(a) Any action of the liquidator;(b) Any other provision of law relating to bankruptcy, reorganisation, composition with creditors, receivership or any other insolvency proceeding an insolvent party may be subject to; or(c) Any other provision of law that may be applicable to an insolvent party, subject to the conditions contained in the applicable netting agreement.”
With this provision the perennial issue with derivative transactions in Nigeria, which was to the effect that only insolvency netting was possible, has been addressed.
In terms of obligations of the parties to a netting agreement surviving the commencement of insolvency proceedings, the only obligation/right, if any, of either party is to make/receive payment or delivery under a netting agreement which shall be equal to its net obligation/entitlement with respect to the other party as determined in the netting agreement.
Furthermore, the provisions under CAMA 2020 limit the liquidator’s powers to disclaim netting agreements as onerous contracts. It provides that:
“Any power of the liquidator to repudiate individual contracts or transactionswill not prevent the termination, liquidation or acceleration of all payment or delivery obligations or enforcements under one or more qualified financial contracts entered into under or in connection with a netting agreement, and applies, if at all, only to the net amount due in respect of all of such qualified financial contracts in accordance with the terms of such netting agreement”.
Section 721(6) of CAMA 2020 also provides protection for netting agreements in that a liquidator is prohibited from avoiding the terms of such agreement unless there is clear evidence that the enforcing party made such transfer or incurred such obligation with actual intent to “hinder, delay or defraud any entity to which the insolvent party was indebted or became indebted”. The relevant time period is the period on or after the date that such transfer was made or such obligation was incurred.
These new provisions mitigate the risks hitherto inherent in “qualified financial contracts” which includes a whole range of derivatives and will go a long way to enhance financial stability and investor confidence in the Nigerian financial sector.
There is no doubt that with the improved regulatory landscape, the CAMA 2020 has commendably set the tone for the actualisation of key innovations in the market, providing enabling legal backing for netting, bankruptcy remoteness and attendant regulatory frameworks for the smooth functioning of financial markets in Nigeria which would ultimately impact positively on transactions between counterparties and other participants in the market.
The Companies and Allied Matters 2020 is currently awaiting gazetting as the last step to its effectiveness.
1. The Bankruptcy Act, CAP B2, LFN 2004, s 33.
2. The Companies and Allied Matters Act CAP C20 LFN 2004, s 493.
3. The Companies and Allied Matters Act CAP C20 LFN 2004, s 413.
4. The Companies and Allied Matters Act 2020, s 718.
5. The Companies and Allied Matters Act 2020, s 721(2),(3).
6. The Companies and Allied Matters Act 2020, s 721(4).
Article by: Olayemi Anyanechi, Managing Partner at Sefton Fross