Call us for free on 0800 1777 522
Info Articles

NA Legal

Solicitors for small & medium business.

What the difference between a share sale and an asset sale ?

There are two basic structures for transferring a business.  An asset sale is where the buyer purchases a collection of assets and legal rights (and sometimes liabilities) relating to the business.  An example of this might be a grocery shop business where the buyer purchases the business premises, fixtures, fittings and equipment used by the business, stock and takes on the employees.  Most transfers of small businesses are asset sales. 


The other type of business transfer is a share purchase.  This type of business transfer is only available where the business is run by a limited company.  Rather than the buyer purchase the various elements of the business from the limited company, what happens is that the buyer purchases the limited company itself by acquiring its shares.

Under an asset sale, the seller could be any of a sole trader, partnership or limited company.  However, with a share transfer, this option is only available where the business being purchased is owned by a limited company.

Both types of business transfer result in ultimate ownership of the business changing hands but there are differences in legal and tax matters concerning the two methods.

Asset sale

The types of assets, rights and liabilities which might feature in an asset sale include:

Business goodwill

Business information and records

IT systems and software

Intellectual property rights

Plant and machinery

Leasehold or freehold premises

Stock

Work in progress

The benefit (or the burden) of contracts

The parties usually agree that certain assets used by the business are excluded from the sale.  Things like cash in the bank, debts and liabilities of the business and insurance claims are usually excluded.

The key advantage of an asset sale is that the buyer and the seller have great flexibility over what is included in the sale, what is excluded and exactly how the deal can be structured.

Whilst this is an advantage, it can mean that sometimes asset sales become more complex.  One example is where leasehold property is involved.  With an asset sale, the leasehold will have to be transferred specifically to the buyer.  This means that the landlord will need to be involved in consenting to and agreeing the terms on which the lease is transferred.  It also means that there will be additional legal costs including the landlord’s legal costs to pay as part of the transaction.

Another example is where contracts need to be novated and any assets which are on hire purchase have to be transferred specifically to the buyer and where this requires consent, from the hire purchase provider.

Asset transfers will almost always be subject to the TUPE regulations which means that the contracts of employment of all employees automatically transfers to the buyer at the time of the business transfer.

A key feature of asset purchases is that the tax treatment is generally very much less favourable than a share transfer.  There is potentially a VAT liability for one or both parties and there will be a Capital Gains Tax liability on the seller.

Share sale

In UK company law, a limited company has a separate legal identity to its owners (its owners being the shareholders).  This means that when a company carried on a business, it is the limited company itself which is the owner of the various assets and rights etc that make up the business.  It is not the shareholders that are the owners of the business, it is the limited company.  With a share transfer, the business itself does not change hands.  The business is still owned by the limited company but it is the ownership of the limited company that has changed.  

What this means is that unlike with an asset sale, all aspects of the business remain exactly as they were before the transfer has taken place.  It means that assets do not have to be transferred individually, it is only ownership of the company that has changed.

The key advantage of share transfers is that there is simplicity in that there is no need to transfer any individual assets, rights or contracts etc.  So, for example, if the limited company is the tenant under a lease, the landlord of the present premises does not need to be involved because ownership of the lease has not changed.

It means that it is not necessary to identify and account for every asset and piece of equipment etc owned by the company.  It all remains in place as it was. 

A share transfer allows for a cleaner break by the sellers of the shares.  It means all liabilities etc remain with the company and they step back from all of that at the point when they have sold their particular shares.

Because the employees are still employed by the limited company, there is no need to consult and inform them under the TUPE regulations.

The seller has big tax advantages with selling shares in a company, rather than being involved in an asset sale.  In most cases there is no Capital Gains Tax to pay and the seller will usually get 100% tax relief.  The buyer in a share transfer has to pay Stamp Duty on the shares purchased at 0.5%.
What can you do when your commercial tenant breach...
Case Study : New PSV Application in the South East

Call us for free on 0800 1777 522


Get In Touch Call or fill out the form below

Please let us know your name.
Please let us know your email address.
Please write a subject for your message.
Please let us know your message.
Invalid Input

 


We advise and represent transport businesses throughout the whole of the UK in all parts of England, Scotland, Wales and N.Ireland

Uk





Latest Blogs

We were approached by an operator who had received public inquiry paper several weeks earlier. The Operator instructed us to represent him at his inquiry listed for a hearing before the Traffic Commis...
We recently represented two companies who were both called to the same public inquiry. Although separate entities, the companies were closely connected because of having the same set of directors. One...
We were approached by a small business owner to represent them at the a public inquiry which had been called to consider their application for a new passenger vehicle operator’s licence.The person app...

IF YOU NEED HELP OR ADVICE WITH A TRANSPORT LAW ISSUE

Call us today for free on 0800 1777 522
Send us an enquiry online via our contact form HERE
Email us on contact@nalegal.co.uk

Latest Transport Law

Transport Law
We were approached by an operator who had received public inquiry paper several weeks earlier. The Operator instructed us to represent him at his inquiry listed for a hearing before the Traffic Commissioner’s (TC) only two weeks in advance.

There were several serious issues that the TC indicated he wanted to examine at the hearing and was threatening regulatory action against the Operator Company. The Operator had approached another firm of solicitors, who informed him that the likely outcome of the hearing would be loss of repute and licence revocation.

We provided the Operator with advice about immediate steps to be taken in preparation for the hearing. We requested the operator send us a number of documents critical to the success of his inquiry. A consideration of those document showed significant—but not insurmountable—shortfalls in maintenance standards and legal requirements.

The operator had recently appointed a new Transport Manager (TM) with an excellent reputation in his field. The TM worked along with us in analysing the Company’s compliance systems to create better compliance systems and improve the of the Company’s mindset about such.

We prepared extensive written representations and sent these to the TC in advance of the hearing along with supporting documentation.

We recommended that both the Operator (Director) and his Transport Manager attend the hearing. As expected the TC questioned the Operator and TM extensively about the various issued raised. We guided and advised the Operator and TM throughout the hearing. Following our final submissions, the TC decided not to revoke the licence or disqualify the Operator Company. The Operator was issued with a warning and a very short suspension of one vehicle until it had a further maintenance inspection and remedial work done. The Operator was allowed to keep the rest of his fleet working with minimal disruption to the business. The Operator was thrilled with our services and has since instructed us at least one other transport matter.
Transport Law
We recently represented two companies who were both called to the same public inquiry. Although separate entities, the companies were closely connected because of having the same set of directors. One of the companies (the Operator) had years previously been issued with a restricted goods vehicle operator’s licence. The other company had recently applied for the same kind of licence (the Applicant).

Over the previous year, the directors had decided to progressively move most of the Operator’s business interests to its sister company the Applicant. Without understanding the potential consequences, and before being granted its operator’s licence, the Applicant began using the Operator’s heavy goods vehicle. The Operator company had not informed the Traffic Commissioner (TC) of its change in business arrangements and of the apparent change of entity (though the companies were actually wholly owned subsidiaries of another company – see below).

The Public Inquiry was convened because of changes at this business group and a fundamental misunderstanding of the operator’s licence regime, and that there had been what appeared to be a change of entity involving the companies.

The TC needed to be satisfied as to whether the companies were not unfit to hold an operator’s licence due to relevant activities and convictions, and about the events relating to a change in the circumstances of the licence holder. The Operator risked revocation of its licence. The Applicant was at risk of not having its licence granted.

In advance of the inquiry, and to start building their case, we obtained as much information as we could about the businesses and provided each company comprehensive legal advice. We examined the companies’ compliance systems and made recommendations about immediate and longer-term changes that needed to be implemented. On our recommendations, the companies invested time and resources into their maintenance and other systems

As a result of our preliminary work and advice, the companies were fully prepared for the public inquiry hearing. In particular, to answer questions and provide evidence about the apparent change of entity.

At the hearing we demonstrated that the companies were running professional and competent businesses. With specific reference to the issue of the apparent change of entity, the TC accepted that Section 3(4) of the Goods vehicle (licencing of operators) Act 1995 was relevant and that this was not a typical “change of entity” case – because of the companies being subsidiaries. We were able to persuade the TC that the issues that lead to the inquiry arose out of ignorance rather than an attempt to mislead or gain financial advantage

The TC granted the new licence to the Applicant with the Operator company voluntarily surrendering its licence. The directors were delighted with the outcome of the public inquiry hearing and that they managed to avoid the damaging consequences they feared.
Transport Law

We were approached by a small business owner to represent them at the a public inquiry which had been called to consider their application for a new passenger vehicle operator’s licence.

The person applying for the licence had a long background of work in the transport industry as a driver but had never before operated his own transport business. One of the key issues was that the nominated transport manager was also nominated some other licences and the Traffic Commissioner was concerned whether this meant that the transport manager would be able to properly carry out their duties on so many licences at once.