As a Startup Hurtles Toward IPO, When Should Outside Counsel Say No?
What lessons can be learned from WeWork's IPO debacle?
October 21, 2019 at 05:00 AM
5 minute read
Even under the supervision of an experienced in-house lawyer and a group of well-qualified outside counsel, a multibillion-dollar startup's plan to go public can still get derailed.
In one month, the co-working company WeWork went from getting ready for the public market to oustering its co-founder and chief executive Adam Neumann, and then indefinitely postponing its IPO.
WeWork's parent, The We Company, filed for the initial public offering Aug. 14. According to the company's S-1 filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, New York firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom is handling the company's IPO work, while Simpson Thacher & Bartlett is representing its underwriters, led by Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase.
After the filing, WeWork faced a series of roadblocks, including investors questioning the company's net worth and its corporate structure. The company ultimately asked its legal counsel to withdraw its IPO filings Sept. 30.
"It looks terrible for everybody, the lawyers, the bankers and WeWork," said Nori Gerardo Lietz, a senior lecturer at Harvard Business School who recently published an analysis of the office-rental company.
"At some point, the adult in the room has to stand up and say no," she added.
Skadden and Simpson Thacher both declined to comment on their representation of WeWork.
In her article, "Why WeWork Won't" Lietz pointed out the flaws in WeWork's financial statements and questioned its confusing corporate structure, concluding that the company would face serious business consequences if it failed to complete its IPO.
For example, Lietz noted, WeWork misstated the number and cost of the working desks it set up in the first half of the year. The prospectus filed in August said 273,000. Barely a month later, an amended filing said 106,000. The total gross cost is also different in the two fillings—in August, WeWork said it was $1.3 billion, but in September that was revised down to $800 million.
"They amended it twice, not once," Lietz said. "I don't know why the lawyers allowed them to submit the prospectus in the first instance, the way it was written."
The document also wasn't clear on some important governance issues, she said, including the fact that Neumann, still chief executive at the time, had been on the board's compensation committee, which means that he would have a say in his own compensation.
"If the CEO is given certain powers, those are the CEO's powers," said Dror Futter, a capital markets partner at Rimon P.C., who has been following the WeWork developments.
"The law gives corporate officers and directors significant discretion in running their company. As a result, even when there are no absolute prohibitions involved, you as an attorney may counsel the CEO that even though he or she has the power to do XYZ … you don't advise it," Futter said.
Outside counsel can be in a bind when dealing with a powerful founder because the lawyer has to balance the vision of the founders and the interests of the board, Futter said. Other Silicon Valley capital markets attorneys, who spoke with The Recorder but asked not to be named, agreed.
WeWork also has two chief legal officers, according to its S-1 filing. Jennifer Berrent, who joined the company five years ago from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, was promoted to co-president of the We Co. in April. While Jared DeMatteis, Berrent's colleague from Wilmer, also serves as WeWork's global general counsel.
The in-house lawyers, through a WeWork spokesperson, declined to comment.
"At the end of the day the attorney is not the client, and so outside of things that are just on their face illegal, lawyers are counselors, and they can advise the board, and the board can reject that advice," Futter said.
He added that if the attorney is very uncomfortable with the rejection, they can consider withdrawing from the representation although that is not common. He added, "there are limits to what the attorneys can do."
Neuman was forced to step down from his role as CEO on Sept. 24, and two WeWork executives, Artie Minson and Sebastian Gunningham, became co-CEOs of WeWork, taking the reins as the company attempts to navigate its future.
With the IPO shelved, WeWork's incomplete financial data makes it harder to assess the company's prospects as it tries to adapt to a future without the money expected from the IPO.
The company's biggest investor is Japanese bank SoftBank, which had invested $2 billion in WeWork at a valuation of $47 billion as of January. According to The Wall Street Journal, SoftBank has hired lawyers from Weil, Gotshal & Manges to help sort through WeWork's finances, as it seeks to gain further control of the company.
Several reports also revealed that WeWork could run out of cash by November. Its investors, including SoftBank and JPMorgan Chase, are working in an effort to save WeWork from going bankrupt.
"They don't have time, they have to raise a lot of money," Lietz stressed.
|Read More
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSouthern California Law Firms Boast Industry-Leading Revenue, Demand Through Q3
Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
Lost in the Legal Maze: How State Regulations Are Hindering Hemp Operators' Success
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250