Managing Mergers and Dissolutions
| Jurisdiction | New Hampshire,United States |
| Citation | Vol. 50 No. 2 Pg. 0072 |
| Pages | 0072 |
| Publication year | 2009 |
2009 Fall, Pg. 72. Managing Mergers and Dissolutions
Volume 50, No. 2
Fall 2009
I. INTRODUCTION
This article is intended as a practical guide for counsel called upon to assist a faltering New Hampshire nonprofit organization that is considering some type of restructuring, including a reorganization, merger or dissolution.(fn2) While there are many types of nonprofit organizations(fn3), this article will focus on mission-driven charitable organizations qualified as tax exempt under Section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code.(fn4)Despite such focus, the proposed analytical framework applies equally to other troubled New Hampshire voluntary corporations.
Charitable organizations are different from business organizations. At their best, they are born of altruism and exist to perpetuate a charitable mission. When they die, the best of them leave a void for their clients like the loss of a cherished friend. The unexpected closure of a nonprofit makes headlines. Such stories are a testament to the force of nonprofits and the energy they bring to bear on the lives of those who depend on them. This "charitable energy" is not found in a reorganization, merger/acquisition or closure of a for-profit entity. Consequently, nonprofit governing boards and their counsel must (in addition to addressing the obvious and usual concerns) mindfully manage this energy in the context of the organization's mission and in the midst of economic turmoil.
When a charitable organization lacks the means (financial or otherwise) to fulfill its mission, the organization has essentially three options(fn 5 ):
i. It can reorganize.
ii. It can merge.
iii. It can dissolve.
In evaluating these options, care must be taken to protect the energy of the organization expended in the fulfillment of its charitable mission. New Hampshire's legal framework provides basic guidance, but it does not sufficiently address the unique needs and expectations of those who have come to depend upon a charity that has grown infirm.(fn 6 ) New Hampshire's voluntary corporation statute, RSA 292 (all 35 pages of it), stands in stark contrast to the 137 pages of New Hampshire's Business Corporation Act, RSA 293-A.(fn 7 ) This difference is highlighted not to suggest that RSA 293-A is entirely sufficient, but it certainly provides more tools for practitioners to use. This article will propose a framework suitable for troubled nonprofits based upon existing law and will conclude with some suggestions for change and improvements to RSA 292.
II. THE CALL OF DUTY
New Hampshire nonprofit organizations can take many forms, including charitable trusts, testamentary trusts, or voluntary corporations(fn 8 ). Most will have as their purpose one of the purposes set forth in RSA 292, even if not incorporated under that section. Ultimately, the organization needs to function in a manner that fulfills its mission. Commonly, it will be prevented from fulfilling its purposes/mission for financial reasons. At other times, an organization may be prevented from fulfilling its mission for non-economic reasons like impracticability, obsolescence and the like. Regardless of the reason, an unfulfilled mission is a crisis for a mission-driven charitable organization.
Those who govern nonprofit organizations are bound by fiduciary duties to act in the best interests of the organization. This is a basic concept, but what does it really mean and what does it require of a governing board? Does it mean preserving the organizations assets? Definitely. Does it mean managing the organization's liabilities? Yes. Does it mean preserving the organization's mission to the full extent possible, even in the wake of a transformative event like a reorganization, merger, or dissolution? Certainly.(fn 9 ) As discussed below, a reorganization or a merger can occur without terminating an organization's charitable mission. By contrast, the decision to dissolve is an extreme measure that must be seriously examined. Governing boards are, after all, expected to perpetuate a charitable organization's mission, not to extinguish it. The decision to dissolve should be undertaken only after much careful thought and documented deliberation about the organization's prospects, with the board's deliberations and final decision ideally informed by an expert specifically retained for the purpose.(fn 10 )
In the case of charitable organizations, there will likely be a small, yet perceptible, "charitable void" left unfilled upon the organization's dissolution which should be considered. Metaphorically speaking, the creation of this void upon dissolution is but one of the reasons behind the various fiduciary duties incumbent upon those who govern nonprofit organizations. While the human needs met by any particular faltering nonprofit may be modest, needs met are needs met. In a survey of the sector, the NH Center for Nonprofits ("the Center") estimates that the nonprofit sector comprises about fourteen and one-half percent (14.5%) of New Hampshire's economy.(fn 11 ) Contributing most heavily to the sector and to this statistic are health care organizations, like hospitals and community mental health organizations, and human service agencies that address housing, and needs of children youth and families.(fn 12 ) Based upon the Center's data, roughly half of the sector is comprised of smaller nonprofits, many with missions endeavoring to make a meaningful micro-impact that meet human needs on a daily basis. Without someone, or some organization to meet these needs, the needs will go unmet and those who have come to depend upon the organization to meet them will be left un-served, and likely somewhat worse off because of it.
There are clearly times when the nonprofit sector in general is better served, if not strengthened, by the dissolution of certain nonprofits.(fn 13 )However the realization of such a macro benefit must begin at the micro level. The governing body of the nonprofit must first engage in a sober assessment of the organization's chances for survival in the short term and for true viability in the long term. To do this, at least three distinct options for addressing the organization's unfulfilled mission - reorganization, merger, or dissolution - must be considered, with each viewed through the prism of the organization's mission. Dissolution is only one available option. It is not the only option, nor should it be considered prematurely to the exclusion of other options.
III. THE BASIC TRIAD OF OPTIONS FOR FALTERING NONPROFITS
a. Reorganization
A faltering organization must initially consider a reorganization. A reorganization may, but need not, entail a bankruptcy filing under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.(fn 14 ) Instead, it could simply mean an overhaul of the organization's staffing, operations, funding, fundraising and governance along with a rededication to its core purposes or mission. Many nonprofits, like many business organizations, suffer from lack of leadership, ineffective board oversight, lack of vision, insufficient funding or too much debt.(fn 15 ) In many situations, nonprofits suffer as a result of any number of these things. Whether accompanied by a bankruptcy filing or not, a reorganization must be considered in the first instance. If funding permits, an expert consultant would be a wise investment to identify organizational weaknesses and potential corrective measures at the first sign or trouble in the organization and/or in the segment of the sector that the organization serves.
If the organization's board is ineffective, then a new board should be installed. If its executive officer lacks initiative or leadership, then other executives should be considered. If programs can't be sustained, then some should be jettisoned for the benefit of others that remain true to the organization's core mission. While most of these ideas are intuitive to the types of thoughtful, smart, and caring people that devote countless volunteer hours to nonprofit boards, implementation and execution of these ideas can be painful on many levels. Most people don't want to hurt others, particularly in times like these, but some casualties are an unhappy fact of life. At the very least, a governing board must examine these options in the exercise of its fiduciary duties. To do otherwise would be to elevate one's personal preferences and feeling over the good of the organization, a situation that is both contrary to one's legal duties and unwise as a matter of both business and common sense.
There are certainly ways for fiduciaries to act kindly and ethically(fn 16 )toward others in the discharge of their duties, but fiduciaries (trustees, board members, etc.) must remain faithful to the organization and to its mission in the first instance. If, in the exercise of proper deliberation, an organization's governing board determines that a reorganization is unlikely to succeed in both the short and long terms, then the next inquiry should be whether a suitable merger partner exists.(fn 17 )
b. Merger
Merger is like marriage. Merger partners need to be both compatible and committed. While those choosing to marry usually do so to build a life together, nonprofits opting to merge should do so to perpetuate and strengthen their ability to fulfill their mission and purposes. Selection of a partner is therefore critical.
In the usual case, a governing board will need expert assistance to identify a suitable merger partner. One need not look hard in New Hampshire to find instances where an attractive partner appeared, and the governing boards - pleased with the prospect of perpetuating the mission - agreed to a merge with a partner that was plagued...
To continue reading
Request your trial