Even if a limited number of these measures, which require a super majority, are adopted, differences of opinion on the strategy can significantly disrupt the operation of the joint venture. The result is an impasse in the management of the joint venture. An impasse is typically defined as the inability of the JV parties to agree on a certain subset of these super-majority issues. DEALMAKERS LIKE TO use simple analogies to explain complex transactions. One of the favorites we hear is that joint ventures are like marriages. It is true that a strong marriage has joint decision-making and a common bank account (although we suspect that modern marriages do not have service agreements). But where this analogy falls flat is that, while marriages are alliances that must last forever – only 5% have marriage contracts – joint venture agreements have the exit terms from the start in 95% of the deals we see. Unfortunately, these terms are often problematic, with critical errors that are not corrected by dealmakers who fear that an over-engineering of the release will invite it. As one dealmaker told us recently, “I mean it`s a long-term partnership, not something with 10 different ways to declare it and get out – which by the way doesn`t seem to trust them.” From a practical point of view, the parties to the JV normally recognise that a blockage is not in the interests of both parties. Business remains without trains, which deerages its value. It is a situation of lots. The parties will want to negotiate a solution. Well-crafted exit and termination provisions can be a starting point from which the parties can negotiate a solution that they might not otherwise achieve without these provisions.
This provision is often the subject of detailed negotiations which may limit withdrawal rights to situations in which the acquiring party is a member of a particular group of competitors or of an undertaking carrying on a certain category of activities. Many joint ventures have only two or three parties. A typical joint venture structure may have two companies of undertakings that hold, directly or indirectly, a substantial interest in the company or LLC, which serves as a joint venture entity. Each Party may involve certain key officials in the Joint Undertaking and those delegates shall be empowered to take day-to-day operational decisions as part of their tasks. In addition to Deadlock`s situations, the other party, when it significantly violates the joint venture agreement, generally has the right to trigger exit provisions. For example, in a situation where the parties have previously agreed to make certain capital deposits, but one party is unable or does not want more in the future, the other party may no longer want to cooperate with the defaulting party. A change in control of a party is often treated in the same way as a default. The identity of the joint venture partner is often important enough to trigger exit rights in favour of the party not experiencing the change of control. A party may be reluctant to accept the creation of these optional rights for any change in control. It could argue that the creation of these rights in favour of its joint venture in response to a change of control is a stroke of luck if the identity of the new controlling party does not pose a threat to the joint venture. Common arguments against the inclusion of exit or termination provisions include the following: For the purposes of this Article, a joint venture is an undertaking set up by two or more parties to carry out a specific activity in which each party contributes significant assets or capabilities to the monitoring of the joint venture.
. . .