Let’s go straight to docs: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|negotiation|}}A statement only a [[private practice lawyer]] would say, usually in the context of a lack of time or resources. I.e., “Oh cripes that time line is hyper-aggressive, and this could all go totally [[pear-shaped]]. We don’t have ''time'' for a [[term-sheet]]; let’s just crack on and go straight to docs.”<ref>Imagine a privately-educated north-London accent if you please.</ref> | {{a|negotiation|}}A statement only a [[private practice lawyer]] would say, usually in the context of a lack of time or resources. I.e., “Oh cripes that time line is hyper-aggressive, and this could all go totally [[pear-shaped]]. We don’t have ''time'' for a [[term-sheet]]; let’s just crack on and go straight to docs.”<ref>Imagine a privately-educated, Oxbridge-graduated north-London accent saying “pear-shaped” and “crack on” if you please.</ref> | ||
Look: if you are doing an [[NDA]], ''maybe'' there is some sense in that — though none in engaging a [[private practice lawyer]] to do an NDA in the first place, of course. (What are you? ''Mad''?) | Look: if you are doing an [[NDA]], ''maybe'' there is some sense in that — though none in engaging a [[private practice lawyer]] to do an [[NDA]] in the first place, of course. (What are you? ''Mad''?) | ||
In any situation where engaging [[external counsel]] ''does'' make sense, then dispensing with a [[termsheet]] is a charter for ''utter disaster''. | In any situation where engaging [[external counsel]] ''does'' make sense, then dispensing with a [[termsheet]] is a charter for ''utter disaster''. The main commercial points of a deal are generally few, easily articulated, and live well on a [[termsheet]]. They can then be attacked, haggled over, articulated, refined, and beaten to a fine copper sheen ''in the abstract'', by the business principles, in a relatively short period of time. By this stage all the heat as gone out of the negotiation; the principles are done, they just want to get on with it. Each will urge its own counsel on with the following words: | ||
Look, just get on with it, would you? I don’t want to mess around here. I am not paying for you to wordsmith. Make sure the [[termsheet]] is adequately reflected, we haven 't missed anything obvious, but otherwise do not [[due dilly|dilly dally]]. | |||
This ''must'' be the critical path. Surely starting with a trust indenture that — we hope, pray and ''trust'', but cannot ''know'' — has all those elements integrated into it, but dispersed randomly throughout it, cannot be as quick. Any legal eagle who catches sight of an indemnity — however ill-judged, or insignificant, or uncalled-for — will be drawn to it, like a moth to a lamp and she will have to ''address'' it. To hell with the main commercial terms. This existential risk must be addressed. | |||
And so it will carry on the legal eagles will get waylaid with every hold harmless, and typo, and representation, and they may never make it to the commercial ter,ms. They may never even find them. Most likely they will never even know what they ''are''. | |||
A good [[termsheet]] is a discipline: a cocktail napkin; the contextualised essence of whatever the turgid entropic mass of final [[verbiage]] will, in its perverse and circuitous manner of expressing itself, eventually reflect. | |||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
*[[Private practice lawyer]] | *[[Private practice lawyer]] | ||
{{ref}} | {{ref}} | ||
Revision as of 15:26, 9 June 2021
|
Negotiation Anatomy™
|
A statement only a private practice lawyer would say, usually in the context of a lack of time or resources. I.e., “Oh cripes that time line is hyper-aggressive, and this could all go totally pear-shaped. We don’t have time for a term-sheet; let’s just crack on and go straight to docs.”[1]
Look: if you are doing an NDA, maybe there is some sense in that — though none in engaging a private practice lawyer to do an NDA in the first place, of course. (What are you? Mad?)
In any situation where engaging external counsel does make sense, then dispensing with a termsheet is a charter for utter disaster. The main commercial points of a deal are generally few, easily articulated, and live well on a termsheet. They can then be attacked, haggled over, articulated, refined, and beaten to a fine copper sheen in the abstract, by the business principles, in a relatively short period of time. By this stage all the heat as gone out of the negotiation; the principles are done, they just want to get on with it. Each will urge its own counsel on with the following words:
Look, just get on with it, would you? I don’t want to mess around here. I am not paying for you to wordsmith. Make sure the termsheet is adequately reflected, we haven 't missed anything obvious, but otherwise do not dilly dally.
This must be the critical path. Surely starting with a trust indenture that — we hope, pray and trust, but cannot know — has all those elements integrated into it, but dispersed randomly throughout it, cannot be as quick. Any legal eagle who catches sight of an indemnity — however ill-judged, or insignificant, or uncalled-for — will be drawn to it, like a moth to a lamp and she will have to address it. To hell with the main commercial terms. This existential risk must be addressed.
And so it will carry on the legal eagles will get waylaid with every hold harmless, and typo, and representation, and they may never make it to the commercial ter,ms. They may never even find them. Most likely they will never even know what they are.
A good termsheet is a discipline: a cocktail napkin; the contextualised essence of whatever the turgid entropic mass of final verbiage will, in its perverse and circuitous manner of expressing itself, eventually reflect.
See also
References
- ↑ Imagine a privately-educated, Oxbridge-graduated north-London accent saying “pear-shaped” and “crack on” if you please.