All alliances end eventually. The average joint venture lasts 7 years, with almost 80% end up in a sale to one of the partners. Non-equity alliances often have shorter life spans. For example, the marketing alliances in high-tech and retail business usually last a maximum of two years.Termination is natural in any alliance life cycle. In order to improve the termination process, companies need to take a broader and more strategic view of alliance termination and need to do so during the initial phrases of venture creation. Company needs assessment of both strategic and contractual considerations.
Strategic considerations are factors outside the detailed legal language of the alliance contract that define the path of termination.
5 merit special attention:
Set clear termination goal
Make appropriate contribution to the alliance.
Keep the deal structure flexible.
Institute effective human resource policies.
Develop a portfolio of options.
Although, these questions may not lead to decisions different to those the firm have taken, we believe that the best firms do make decisions based on overall exit goals.
Human resources policies can also shape termination process and performance.
Termination success is depend on the details in the alliance contract, firm should be focus on four contractual dimensions which are trigger events, future ownership rights, valuation methods, and post termination demands.
The first step is to determine what events will trigger termination that will allow the corporate parent to end the alliance. There are & broad categories of triggering events
4. Change in parent status- firm should also consider whether certain changes in the status of the corporate parents should prompt termination rights. These changes may also relate to financial health, including the bankruptcy
5. Parent breach- the most common exit trigger is breach of contract that one partner fails to meet its basic obligations to the agreement
6. Parent deadlock- an alliance contract should indicate what will happen if the partners deadlock on critical decisions, the best agreement is to include resolution mechanisms for example a process for appealing the decision for higher levels position within the parent companies
7. Termination at will- It is in the strategic interest of the parents to simply allow the partners to terminate the alliance whenever desired. This tend to make sense only when the alliance entails very limited resource integration between the firm
The alliance contract needs to spell out who will own the alliance related assets in the future once termination rights have been triggered and closure is the chosen course.
For non-equity alliances, this can be straightforward exercise. Each partner simply retains the assets it lent to the alliance. However, the contract will also need to address the ownership of ideas and other intellectual assets created in the course of the alliance. Typically, this can be done in one of two ways.
1. One is allow the partners to share rights.
2.The other approach is for one partner to control most or all of intellectual assets. This is usually the one who funding the alliance.
For joint ventures, it is hard or impossible to return the contributions to the corporate parents. This is because within a few years, most joint ventures have fully integrated. Hence, it is no longer possible to determine who owns what. Therefore, when firms decide to terminate a joint venture the contract needs to address who will take the ownership of the business and how the exiting partner’s stake will be valued.
The contract should indicate how firms will value the business in the event of termination. Otherwise, a firm can be led to unwanted outcomes such as assets valued at below-market prices or protracted legal battles with its partner. There are three basic models for valuing assets in joint ventures.
The first one is roulette. Here, one firm (usually the one that exercises the right to terminate) places a dollar value on the total business, and the other partner determines whether it wants to buy or sell its interest based on that price.
Another model is to allow an independent assessor such as an investment bank to set a price on the assets.
The last model is to set a predetermined price or pricing formula for the business. For example, the venture contracts reportedly stated that if one partner decided to terminate at will, the other partner could buy its share back at a 10 percent discount on a fair’s market assessment of the firm’s interest.
The alliance contract also needs to indicate whether the partners will have any future demands placed upon them after the alliance terminates. Such demands can be divided into future relationships, restrictions, and responsibilities.
Future relationships – The firms may decide that some continued links are needed after the alliance has ended. For example, a new business JV may depend on some or all corporate parents for ongoing access to certain brand names, technological know-how, or material supplies.
Future restrictions – It is common for the partners to have at least some restrictions placed upon them when the alliance is terminated. For example, non-competing in a certain product or geographical area for a period, prevent poaching staff from the former partner.
Future responsibilities – Sometimes, terminated alliances have remaining obligations to customers, suppliers, or other parties. The firms have to deal with them as best as they can in the contract although the alliance is already terminated.
To get started, members of the deal team can pose some questions about the potential alliance. By answering these questions, managers will gain new appreciation for the timing, path, and tasks of alliance termination. The examples of these questions are:
The point in asking these questions is to spark a general discussion among team members and to gain a deeper appreciation of termination issues before entering the alliance.