{"id":100992,"date":"2022-12-01t12:01:44","date_gmt":"2022-12-01t17:01:44","guid":{"rendered":"\/\/www.g005e.com\/?p=100992"},"modified":"2024-08-07t23:10:09","modified_gmt":"2024-08-08t03:10:09","slug":"merging-protect-your-staff","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"\/\/www.g005e.com\/2022\/12\/01\/merging-protect-your-staff\/","title":{"rendered":"merging? protect your staff"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/a>if your people matter, show it.<\/strong><\/p>\n by marc rosenberg<\/i> when a cpa firm acquires or merges in a smaller firm, it is common for the seller\u2019s staff to be employed by the buyer.<\/p>\n more: <\/b>cherry-pick your merger partner<\/a> | 34 steps to implement a merger<\/a> | m&a: the six types of due diligence<\/a> | why solo cpas need pcas<\/a> | where mergers go wrong<\/a> in this situation, there are two very important documents to be executed between the buyer and the seller\u2019s staff: best practice: employee nonsolicitation agreements<\/strong><\/p>\n for decades, it has been a best practice for cpa firms to require employees to sign a nonsolicitation agreement as a condition of employment. in the early years of most firms, it\u2019s common to neglect having employees sign this agreement. the reasons are that (1) when firms are small and\/or less sophisticated, they simply never think of it (until advised by a cpa firm consultant i know who is a big cubs fan) or (2) they thought it was beyond comprehension that one of their employees might have the wherewithal and foresight to leave the firm and take clients and staff. consequently, many firms that today require employees to sign such an agreement changed<\/strong> their policy and started requiring existing<\/strong> employees to sign an agreement.<\/p>\n attorney peter fontaine says, \u201cgenerally speaking, there should be a meaningful event attached to the signing of a nonsolicitation agreement with existing employees. for example, a substantial raise, a promotion, a new position, significant training, etc. because the employee is giving up a right \u2013 taking clients and staff \u2013 they should receive adequate compensation.\u201d<\/p>\n the amount to be paid is subject to debate. not too long ago, paying employees a nominal amount was acceptable, but says fontaine, \u201cin this day and age, a nominal amount doesn\u2019t cut it like it used to. telling an existing employee that they must agree to a fairly significant restriction on future employment for a few dollars or get fired is generally viewed by the courts as draconian.\u201d<\/p>\n when a buyer employs the seller\u2019s staff<\/strong><\/p>\n good news: in this case, the buyer need not remunerate the seller\u2019s employees. \u201cthe offer of employment is usually sufficient,\u201d says fontaine. one firm we talked to that has made several acquisitions in recent years said because their compensation and benefit package is always better than the sellers\u2019, it is sufficient remuneration.<\/p>\n if the seller had signed nonsolicitation agreements from its employees, it is advisable for the buyer to have the seller\u2019s employees sign their own (new) agreement, as the terms are probably different and the enforceability less certain.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\ncpa firm mergers: your complete guide<\/i><\/a><\/p>\n
\nexclusively for pro members. <\/span><\/strong>log in here<\/a> or 2022世界杯足球排名 today<\/a>.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/p>\n\n