June 2017
From the Colorado Bar Association
Business Law Section
Ed Naylor, Editor
If you have trouble viewing this page in your e-mail application, you may also view it online.
In This Issue:
Market Data and Trends in Recent M&A Deal Terms
An Analysis of 795 deals (2013-2016) valued at $139 Billion
Sean Arend, SRS Acquiom
Introduction
Effective dealmakers know that optimal M&A dealmaking requires deep knowledge of the latest market data and trends in deal terms, but the terms of most M&A deals are undisclosed. A large portion of this previously undisclosed data is now available in the recently released 2017 SRS Acquiom M&A Deal Terms Study. This study analyzes 795 private-target acquisitions with approximately $139 billion in value that closed from 2013 through 2016 in which SRS Acquiom provided professional and financial services. The Study’s findings are representative of U.S. private-target acquisitions (merger, stock and asset deals) that are generally not required under SEC rules to be publicly disclosed. The database is especially germane to professionals involved in middle market M&A. The study includes deals by public, private, financial and foreign buyers. Click here for the 2017 SRS Acquiom M&A Deal Terms Study.
Below is a summary of the Study’s key findings dealmakers will find useful in negotiating M&A deals in 2017.
Summary of Key Findings
Financial Terms:
- New for 2017 Study: The median time from first investment round to exit was 5 years for 2016 deals. In past years, we had measured years from founding to exit.
- The median amount of equity capital invested decreased relative to past years ($17 million in 2016; $24 million and $23 million in 2015 and 2013, respectively), while the average number of equity financing rounds at exit remained consistent at 3 rounds for all such periods. The median multiple of return on investment was correspondingly higher for 2016 deals, at 4.6x (3.9x and 3.7x in 2015 and 2013, respectively).
- The frequency of management carveouts in deals continued to decrease, to only 15% of deals in 2016, the lowest in recent years. The lower amount of equity capital invested and higher median return multiple may have impacted this.
- All stock deals were down to 1% in 2016, the lowest since we started publishing these studies. Less frequent use of stock as a component of closing consideration seems to correspond with a decrease in the frequency of options being assumed.
- Earnouts in non-life sciences deals in 2016 remained steady at 14%, but they were much more often based on a specific metric other than revenue or earnings, 36% of 2016 deals using such other metrics compared to only 13% of 2015 deals. This impacted the inclusion of buyer covenants to run the business, which rose significantly in 2016 earnout deals to 16% (from 0% in 2015) and 20% (from 5% in 2015) to run in accordance with seller past practices or run to maximize earnout payments, respectively.
- Use of a separate escrow for post-closing purchase price adjustments increased to 39% of 2016 deals that had purchase price adjustment mechanisms, up from just 27% in 2015.
Indemnification Terms:
- The median general survival period for representations and warranties dropped slightly to 16 months, compared to 18 months in recent years. The median general escrow size remained steady at 10% of transaction value. However, our data still shows that deals valued at $50 million or less tend to have larger escrows as a percentage of transaction value.
- Cigna v. Audax, decided in Delaware in late 2014, has not resulted in increased escrow sizes or longer general survival periods, as some hypothesized might happen. (This case addressed the unenforceability of indemnification obligations of the target’s shareholders and the shareholders’ release of claims against the buyer.) However, the decision appears to have resulted in less frequent use of indefinite survival periods for “fundamental” representations and warranties, with a somewhat more frequent use of caps less than purchase price. To be sure, those changes are noticeable, but not drastic, and we have observed, as part of the SRS Acquiom payments administration service, an increase in deal parties using support/joinder or similar agreements to address the Audax issues.
- Use of deductible baskets jumped to 42% of 2016 deals, from 30% in 2015. Deductible basket sizes also continued to trend larger, to a median of 0.75% of transaction value in 2016, up from .65% and .71% in 2014 and 2015, respectively.
- Pro-sandbagging clauses in agreements continued to grow, in 58% of 2016 deals, up from 52% in the prior 2 years; anti-sandbagging clauses dropped to 0% of 2016 deals.
- Inclusion of a materiality scrape for determining both breach and damages almost doubled from 19% in 2015 deals to 34% of 2016 deals.
- Despite a 2015 New York case deciding that diminution in value damages are general in nature and would need to be expressly excluded, conservative buyers more often expressly included these damages (in 23% of 2016 deals compared to 18% of 2015 deals), while sellers were less successful in excluding them (down to 10% of 2016 deals from 12% last year).
- Inclusion of “non-reliance” plus “no other representations” clauses slightly increased in 2016 to 34% of deals, up from 31% of 2015 deals, likely due to sellers attempting to preclude claims for extra-contractual fraud in accordance with Delaware cases decided in 2015 and 2016, but met with limited success in negotiations. Also, the survival period for fraud was specified more often, with silent/unspecified dropping from 24% of 2015 deals to just 9% of 2016 deals.
Closing Conditions:
- Use of a Material Adverse Effect standard for the accuracy of seller’s representations and warranties at closing jumped to 43% in 2016 deals from only 31% of 2015 deals.
- Satisfaction of the “Appraisal Rights” closing condition continued to shift largely toward requiring only a minimum percentage of shareholders to vote for the deal, up to 48% of deals in 2016, from just 16% of 2013 deals and 40% of 2015 deals, likely influenced by the Audax case, since the issue of unenforceability was focused on non-consenting shareholders.
Dispute Resolution:
- Conflict waivers allowing the seller’s law firm to represent the seller’s former shareholders post-closing is still present in half the deals in 2016, but slightly down from the past couple of years.
To request a presentation of the data to your firm, please contact us at [email protected].
Drafting Clear Exculpatory Agreements –
Lessons Learned From an Agreement Gone Wrong
By Rachel Yeates, Moye White LLP
Wendy Jane Stone was a member of fitness club Life Time Fitness, Inc. (“Life Time”). When she joined the club, Stone signed a two-page Member Usage Agreement (“Agreement”). Stone later fractured her right ankle when she tripped on a hair dryer cord while washing her hands in the women’s locker room. Stone brought negligence and Premises Liability Act (“PLA”) claims against Life Time, which moved for summary judgment on the ground that the assumption of risk and release of liability language in the Agreement barred the suit. Stone argued that the exculpatory clauses in the Agreement did not clearly and unambiguously apply to the injuries she suffered while washing her hands, but the district court held the Agreement was valid and enforceable and granted summary judgment on both claims. On appeal, the court reversed the decision with regard to the PLA claim, holding that the release language in the Agreement did not bar the PLA claim, although the negligence claim was properly barred for other reasons. Stone v. Life Time Fitness, Inc., 2016 COA 189M (Colo. Ct. App. Dec. 29, 2016).
Exculpatory Language at Issue
The court of appeals attached a copy of the two-page Agreement as an appendix to its order. The Agreement, written in very small, dense print, included a section regarding the gym’s rules and regulations along with sections titled “under Chapter 458, 459, 460, or Chapter 461 Assumption of Risk” and “Release of Liability.” These two sections are reproduced below.
under Chapter 458, 459, 460 or Chapter 461 ASSUMPTION OF RISK
I understand that there is an inherent risk of injury, whether caused by me or someone else, in the use of or presence at a Life Time Fitness center, the use of equipment and services at a Life Time Fitness center, and participation in Life Time Fitness’ programs. This includes, but is not limited to, indoor and outdoor pool areas with waterslides, a climbing wall area, ball and racquet courts, cardiovascular and resistance training equipment, personal training and nutrition classes and services, member programs, a child center, and spa and café products and services. This risk includes, but is not limited:
1) Injuries arising from the use of any of Life Time Fitness’ centers or equipment, including any accidental or “slip and fall” injuries;
2) Injuries arising from participation in supervised or unsupervised activities and programs within a Life Time Fitness center or outside a Life Time Fit center, to the extent sponsored or endorsed by Life Time Fitness;
3) Injuries or medical disorders resulting from exercise at a Life Time Fitness center, including, but not limited to heart attacks, strokes, heart stress, spr broken bones and torn muscles or ligaments; and
4) Injuries resulting from the actions taken or decisions made regarding medical or survival procedures.
I understand and voluntarily accept this risk. I agree to specifically assume all risk of injury, whether physical or mental, as well as all risk of loss, theft or damage of personal property for me, any person that is a part of this membership and any guest under this membership while such persons are using or present at any Life Time Fitness center, using any lockers, equipment, or services at any Life Time Fitness center or participating in Life Time Fitness’ programs, whether such programs take place inside or outside of a Life Time Fitness center.
Release of Liability
I waive any and all claims or actions that may arise against Life Time Fitness, Inc., its affiliates, subsidiaries, successors or assigns (collectively, “Life Time Fitness”) as well as each party’s owners, directors, employees or volunteers as a result of any such injury, loss, theft or damage to any such person, including and without limitation, personal, bodily or mental injury, economic loss or any damage to me, my spouse, my children, or guests resulting from the negligence of Life Time Fitness or anyone else using a Life Time Fitness center. I agree to defend, indemnify and hold Life Time Fitness harmless against any claims arising out of the negligent or willful acts or omissions of me, any person that is a part of my membership, or any guest under this membership.
I HAVE READ AND AGREE TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS ABOVE, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE ASSUMPTION OF RISK AND RELEASE OF LIABILITY, AND I HAVE RECEIVED A COMPLETE COPY OF MY MEMBER USAGE AGREEMENT.
Court’s Ruling
The validity of an exculpatory agreement is a question of law subject to the four-factor Jones test, which examines “(1) the existence of a duty to the public; (2) the nature of the service performed; (3) whether the contract was fairly entered into; and (4) whether the intention of the parties was expressed in clear and unambiguous language.” See Jones v. Dressel, 623 P.2d 370, 375 (Colo. 1981). To determine whether the parties’ intention is expressed in clear and unambiguous language, a court must examine “the actual language of the agreement for legal jargon, length and complication, and any likelihood of confusion or failure of a party to recognize the full extent of the release provisions.”
The court of appeals held the Agreement passed the first three factors but was invalid because it failed the fourth factor, and it cited fully seven reasons for this conclusion. These included the size of the font (“extremely dense fine print, for which a great many people would require a magnifying glass or magnifying reading glasses”) and the use of “technical legal language” that, while not solely determinative of the issue, “militate[d] against the conclusion that the release of liability was clear and simple to a lay person.” The terminology singled out for disapproval included “affiliates, subsidiaries, successors, or assigns,” “assumption of risk,” “inherent risk of injury,” and “I agree to defend, indemnify and hold Life Time Fitness harmless,” which are terms we all use in drafting legal documents.
The court also criticized the repeated use of “includes, but is not limited to,” “including and without limitation,” and “including” because the variant uses might prompt a reader to wonder if the phrases had different meanings in the legal lexicon. The court noted that given the unresolved debate about whether “including but not limited to” is an expansive or restrictive phrase, the term suffers from a legal ambiguity that heightened the confusion engendered by the Agreement.
The court also took issue with the section heading “under Chapter 458, 459, 460, or Chapter 461 Assumption of Risk” not least because neither the court nor counsel for Life Time was able to determine to what “chapters” the heading referred. The court concluded that “[c]onscientious lay persons could reasonably have skipped over the fine print appearing under that heading, believing it did not apply to them because they would have no reason to understand that chapters 458, 459, 450, or 461 had any relevance to their situation.” The court held the second clause, the “Release of Liability,” was likewise confusing, in part because it referred back to terms in the assumption of risk clause and was thereby “infected” by “all of the ambiguities and confusion” in the encrypted assumption of risk clause that preceded it.
Notably, the court also cited the fact that the “dominant focus” of the Agreement related to the “risks of strenuous exercise and use of exercise equipment” as a factor in the Agreement’s ambiguity, and thus its unenforceability. The court identified this focus based on the fact that the first sentences of the clauses related to exercise and exercise equipment – not to facilities-related injuries – and on the clauses’ use of the term “inherent risk of injury,” which typically refers only to those activities held to be “dangerous or potentially dangerous,” such as diving, skiing, and horseback riding. The court held that in light of the “inherent risk” language and the “Agreement’s focus on the use of exercise equipment and facilities and physical injuries resulting from strenuous exercise,” an individual could “reasonably conclude that by signing the Agreement he or she was waiving claims based only on the inherent risks of injury related to fitness activities, as opposed to washing one’s hands.”
Analysis
It is easy to understand why the court took issue with certain aspects of the Agreement, such as the headings that referred to chapters of an unknown publication, but a close look at the opinion does raise several questions.
The most obvious of these is the court’s conclusion that because the “dominant focus” of the clauses related to fitness-related injuries and used the term “inherent risk,” which typically refers to sporting and other non-facilities-related activities, the Agreement was unenforceable with respect to Stone’s PLA claim. But the terms of the Agreement did in fact contain terms that could (possibly) have been construed as barring Stone’s claim for tripping in the locker room: “This risk includes, but is not limited to: 1) Injuries arising from the use of any of Life Time Fitness’ centers…including any accidental or ‘slip and fall’ injuries.” The ruling thus holds that the dominant focus of an exculpatory agreement can, in some cases, so overshadow the language that addresses the injury claimed that it renders the subordinate language unenforceable.
Put another way, the ruling appears to hold that if the overall agreement is unclear, ambiguous, overly complicated, or likely to cause confusion or the failure of a party to recognize the full extent of its terms, the agreement may be unenforceable even if it contains language specifically exculpating the party from the injury claimed. It may not be enough to simply include language addressing the injury for which a party wishes to avoid liability; the overall document must be intelligible.
The second question the holding raises is how a drafter can avoid the “legal jargon” that helped invalidate this Agreement while still effecting a legal contract. The court’s emphasis on an agreement being “clear and simple to a lay person” makes sense in that an agreement does not express the intentions of the parties if one party does not understand what the agreement means. Although the court’s holding is long on critiques, it stopped short of suggesting acceptable alternatives to “affiliates, subsidiaries, successors, or assigns,” “assumption of risk,” “inherent risk of injury,” “includes, but is not limited to,” and “agree to defend, indemnify and hold…harmless.”
Similarly, the court criticizes the use of “including, but not limited to,” in part because of its current legal ambiguity, but it does not offer an alternative or resolve the split in authority it itself acknowledges in the opinion. That said, in its discussion the court highlighted language from a different Life Time exculpatory agreement as an example of Life Time’s ability to draft a clear waiver of liability. This agreement included the sentence “[t]he risks, include, but are not limited to,” thus suggesting that, while frowned upon, the use of “including, but not limited to” will not necessarily invalidate an agreement if the remainder of the document is sufficiently lucid.
Recommendations
Despite the questions it raises, this ruling offers practitioners some concrete takeaways for drafting enforceable exculpatory clauses. The opinion’s emphasis on brevity, simplicity, and linguistic thrift may contradict the impulse of many drafters to include technical terms and duplications in an attempt to “cover all the bases.” Instead, practitioners should keep in mind that extraneous language added by drafters “erring on the side of caution” may ultimately invalidate the very agreement they wish to effect. Stone v. Life Time Fitness thus admonishes exculpatory clause drafters to keep the following in mind:
- Sophistication of the party waiving liability: simpler is better.
- How likely is it that this release will confuse a lay person?
- As with all contracts, exculpatory agreements are construed against the drafter.
- Technical legal language: avoid, limit, or define terms such as “affiliates,” “subsidiaries,” “successors,” “assigns,” “assumption of risk,” “includes, but is not limited to,” “indemnify, and “hold harmless.” Perhaps instead of “I will indemnify you”, say “I will compensate or reimburse you for…” Instead of “I will hold you harmless,” say “I will not hold you responsible.” A clause could still include a term like “assigns” but would be more clear by including a definition such as “any person or company to whom we later transfer our legal rights or liabilities.”
- Font size: bigger is better.
- Length: shorter is often better.
Reviewing a Franchise Disclosure Document from a Franchisee Candidate Perspective
By Laura Liss, Esq., Brown & Kannady, LLC
Many attorneys who practice franchise law represent franchisors, the companies who license their intellectual property (“IP”) to franchisees, those who operate their own independent businesses using the IP. Other franchise attorneys, however, may represent the franchisees as they consider the investment in a franchised business. The primary task during this stage is to review the Franchise Disclosure Document (“FDD”) and advise the client of its contents. While the entire (often 150+ page) FDD should be reviewed thoroughly, certain areas stand out for review and thorough discussion with the client:
1. Ongoing Fees (Item 6).
Most franchisee candidates will already know the royalty rate or the advertising fund fee that is due for the franchise. But fewer candidate clients are aware of the other ongoing fees, that may be per-person (such as software licenses), or the costs for a new manager to attend training or a conference out of state (yes, the training is included, but not the airfare, lodging, car rental, meals, leisure activities, or wages for the worker attending a two-week program), or the fees due if the client sells the franchised business. Reviewing these fees together gives a more accurate view of the operating costs.
2. The “Then-Current” Franchise Agreement References.
One of the areas that many franchisees do not anticipate and therefore have many questions about is that in almost any FDD, there are many instances where the FDD will state that the candidate must sign or be bound by terms in the “then-current” franchise agreement. This is especially common in the language relating to renewal after the initial license ends and terms relating to the obligations to be assumed by a buyer of the business.
Be sure to advise the candidate client that this means that anything in the agreement may change unless the current agreement says it will not change at renewal or the other occasion. These changes could include, among others, the size or boundaries of their territory, minimum sales requirements, minimum staffing requirements, the royalty rate, new or additional fees, and obligations to offer new products or services. This discussion may prompt your client to want to negotiate as well, which may or may not be possible depending on the size, experience, and needs of the franchisor in question.
3. Estimated Initial Investment to Open for Business (Item 7).
This is intended to provide a franchisee a financial snapshot of the estimated costs to open the franchised business, plus at least three months of working capital thereafter. Many franchisees rely strongly on this chart, so, a close review can assist a franchisee in making accurate projections of their expenses, which can in turn be a deciding factor for whether a franchisee will invest. For example,
- Rent and Security Deposit Estimates: For a business that will open in a retail space in the Denver metro area, the franchisor’s estimated rent costs will often be significantly lower than the actual rent, and a candidate who has not owned a business before may be unfamiliar with the rental market. The attorney’s advice on this point can significantly sway the outlook.
- Professional Fees: Most franchisors will estimate $2,000 - $4,000 for all professional fees a franchisee may need, including attorneys, accountants, and their architect or engineer. This estimate is typically absorbed by attorneys’ fees alone, and therefore should be doubled or tripled depending on the concept.
- Travel and Living Expenses While Training: Many franchisors underestimate the cost to attend a training out of state for a few weeks, as previously mentioned. Depending on the number of people, these estimated costs may also need to be doubled or tripled.
- “Additional Funds” or Working Capital: This figure is intended legally to encompass all the amounts necessary to operate the franchised business from the date of opening for at least the next three months, but usually does not include salary or draw for the owner. These funds should include, among others, rent payments, debt service, wages, inventory costs, utilities, payments to the franchisor (royalties, etc.), and advertising.
Counsel reviewing the Additional Funds estimate in Item 7 will commonly suggest budgeting for an additional $30,000 to $50,000 above the high-side Item 7 additional funds estimate to cover unexpected expenses (such as construction overruns, staffing costs, additional advertising, and a longer than expected period before the business earns enough to pay its own expenses.).
While the whole FDD’s contents should be reviewed with the candidate client, these topics often take up the majority of the discussion time. Be sure to have the client understand going in to the relationship that it is often challenging to exit, making building an exit strategy during the initial review important as well.
Business Law Section Activities
Bankruptcy Subsection
Denver Bankruptcy Bar Brown Bag CLE – Save the Date! – Wednesday, September 6, 2017 – Noon – 1:00 p.m.
Co-sponsored by the CBA Bankruptcy Subsection and the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Colorado
A panel will cover the recent revisions of the Local Bankruptcy Rules, including the annual changes to the Federal Bankruptcy Rules, and a recent overhaul of the Local Bankruptcy Rules in Colorado to take effect at the end of 2017. Please attend to learn about the changes to the rules before they are implemented, and share your ideas, suggestions, questions, issues and concerns, as the judges are seeking input from the bar. This brown bag event will be held at the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Colorado, Room 183, 721 19th Street, Denver CO 80202. There is no cost for this program.
Fall Bankruptcy Case Law Update – Save the Date! – Tuesday, October 3, 2017 – 4-6 p.m.
Please save the date for the next update at the Colorado Bar Association, 3rd Floor, 1900 Grant Street, Denver. This update will be presented by:
- Honorable Judge Elizabeth E. Brown (U.S. Bankruptcy Court)
- Anne Zoltani (Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Tenth Circuit)
- Katherine S. Sender (Lindquist & Vennum LLP)
This program has been submitted for 2 general CLE credits, with a complementary reception to follow.
Bankruptcy Subsection Co-Chairs. The CBA Bankruptcy Subsection extends a warm thank you to Mark Larson of Allen Vellone Wolf Helfrich & Factor, P.C. for his dedication and service to the bankruptcy bar over the last two years! Matthew Faga (Markus Williams Young & Zimmermann LLC) and Timothy Swanson (Moye White LLP) are the current co-chairs of the Bankruptcy Subsection (July 2017 – June 2019). If you have ideas, suggestions or comments for future subsection events or CLEs, please contact Matt at [email protected] and Tim at [email protected].
Financial Institutions, International Transactions, and M&A Subsections
These subsections will take a summer break from their CLE series. There are no programs in July and August.
Upcoming Colorado CLE Programs
From the Colorado Bar Association
Hanging Your Own Shingle - 17th Annual Program! – August 2-4, 2017
Sponsored by the Professional Liability Committee and the Solo/Small Firm Section of the Colorado Bar Association
PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS:
GETTING STARTED
- Don’t Freak Out—You Can Do This! Sound Advice for Starting Out
- Day One on Your Own: Getting Started
- The Importance of Business Plans
- What Does a Bank Want to See Before It Loans Money or Extends a Line of Credit?
- Choice of Entity Options When Forming a Business
- Accounting and Financial Controls
- COLTAF Accounts
RUNNING YOUR BUSINESS: MARKETING AND BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT
- Technology: Your First Partner
- Marketing, Ethics of Social Media and Business Development for Your New Firm
- Malpractice Insurance, Including Cyber Insurance
- Managing Your Malpractice Exposure
- A Practical Application for the Rules of Professional Conduct
- The Importance of Finding a Mentor and What CAMP Has to Offer
- From the Trenches: A Panel Presentation of Practical Advice and Traps to Avoid
The program will be held at the Colorado CLE Classroom, 1900 Grant Street, Suite 300, Denver. This program is offered for 18 general CLE credits including 6 ethics credits. Click here for more information or to register.
2017 Business Law Institute – Wednesday and Thursday, September 13-14, 2017 – Grand Hyatt Hotel, Denver
Highlights include:
- Colorado’s Economic Outlook: Powerhouse on the Range in 2018? Implications for You, Your Clients and Potential Clients by Dr. Richard L. Wobbekind, Executive Director of the Business Research Division, Senior Associate Dean for Academic Programs, and Associate Professor of Business Economics, Leeds School of Business, University of Colorado, Boulder,
- Case Law, Legislative and Secretary of State Updates
- Staying out of the In-House Dog House! An In-House Counsel Panel Presentation
Choose from the following breakout sessions:
- Choice of Entity: A Contrarian Approach
- LLC and Partnerships in Bankruptcy: Pick Your Partner Versus the U.S. Bankruptcy Code
- Protecting Your Client’s Intellectual Property and Confidential Information
- Warning: Employer Agreements to Fix Employee Wages or Not to Poach Employees is Now a Criminal Offense of the US Antitrust Laws
- Business Law Vignettes: From the Perspective of Occasional Expert Witnesses
- Employment Law Update
- How to Shut Down a Distressed Business Successfully and Without Bankruptcy
- Employment-Related Agreements: Issues and Potential Problems
- Selected Topics in Small Business Purchase and Sale Transactions
- Drafting LLC Essential Documents
- Essentials of Marijuana and Industrial Hemp Businesses
- Negotiating and Structuring Your Next M&A Deal
- Securities Law Survival Guide
- What Should the Buyer’s Lawyer Look For, and Ask About in Regard to the Target’s Financial Statements?
- Protecting Owners, Members and Shareholders from Personal Liability
- 10 Data Security Principles Every Business Lawyer Must Know
Be prepared for Denver Startup Week in late September! Several of the breakout sessions will help you better advise startup clients. Materials and audio files provided for ALL breakout sessions after the Institute.
The program will be held at the Grand Hyatt, 1750 Welton Street, Denver. This program is offered for 14 general CLE credits including .5 ethics credits. Click here for more information or to register.
40-Hour Mediation Training – Save the Dates! – August 7-9, 2017 and August 14-15, 2017
About the Instructor: Judy Mares-Dixon, M.A., owner of Mares-Dixon & Associates, former partner with CDR Associates, has worked in the conflict resolution field since 1986 as a trainer, mediator, facilitator, consultant, and dispute resolution systems designer in the U.S., Canada, Germany, Australia, and New Zealand. She mediates contract disputes, collective bargaining agreements, sexual harassment, ADA and other EEOC complaints. She mediates grievances, organizational conflicts, conflicts involving cross-cultural issues and public policy disputes. Ms. Mares-Dixon has applied alternative dispute resolution procedures in the private and public sectors at the local, state, and federal levels. She has trained human resource personnel, managers, lawyers, and advocates, in mediation, negotiation, coaching, facilitation, resolving cross-cultural issues and dispute resolution system design.
Business Law CLE Homestudies
2017 Securities Conference
2017 Institute on Advising Nonprofit Organizations
Bankruptcy Case Law Update
Business Contracts – The Fundamentals
2017 Cannabis Symposium
Ethical Issues for Attorneys Serving on Nonprofit Boards
Limited Liability Companies in Colorado
Why Are Banks Reluctant to Touch Cannabis Cash?
Check out the complete catalog of CLE Homestudies – search by practice area or credits!
Contributions for future newsletters are welcome.
Contact Ed Naylor at [email protected] 303-292-2900.
This newsletter is for information only and does not provide legal advice.