Contributed By Holland & Knight
With rising interest rates and tightening credit, joint ventures (JVs) have become an important and more frequent source of financing for capital intensive businesses in multiple industries, including real estate and healthcare. Given the reduced access to capital (both equity and debt), capital partners in JVs in the current market garner more influence and have stronger negotiation leverage, often demanding more favourable economic and governance terms than before. Venturers are also seeking greater flexibility to exit or sunset a JV that is in a deadlock or is not performing up to expectations. The authors believe this is driven in large part by the current uncertain economic environment.
In addition, the overall regulatory environment has become more intense. From the adoption of the new Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) to wider antitrust enforcement and increased scrutiny (where there are non-US investors) by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), JVs are grappling with complex and increased regulatory considerations.
The following industries have been active in the JV arena.
Oxford Languages defines a joint venture as “a commercial enterprise undertaken jointly by two or more parties which otherwise retain their distinct identities”. While the term “joint venture” is sometimes limited to enterprises for a discreet, specific project, for the purpose of this guide, the authors are not applying this limitation. Each party to a JV (whether as a member of a limited liability company (LLC), a partner of a general partnership, a limited or general partner of a limited partnership (LP), a shareholder of a corporation or a party to a contractual JV) is referred to in this guide as a “venturer”. The following vehicles are frequently used.
LLCs
LLCs continue to be the vehicle of choice for most JVs because, subject to certain exceptions, the members and managers of an LLC are not personally liable for the liabilities of the LLC. In addition, LLCs, sometimes referred to as “creatures of contract”, are flexible vehicles that allow wide latitude to the venturers to define their JV relationship. There are no restrictions on the types of owners – they can be natural persons or any type of entity. In addition, governance, economics (including contributions and distributions) and risk sharing can be tailored to the venturers’ needs. In addition, unless they elect to be taxed as a corporation, LLCs are pass-through entities taxed as partnerships for income tax purposes. This means that venturers are allocated their shares of the income, gain or loss of the LLC with no tax at the LLC level, thus avoiding the double taxation that is typical for corporations. In cross-border transactions, caution should be taken before using an LLC, as certain non-US tax laws do not recognise or treat an LLC as a partnership, instead viewing it as a corporation subject to double taxation. With current corporate rates at 21% and Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 199A, which, subject to certain exceptions, allows non-corporate venturers in an LLC, partnership or S-Corp to deduct from their taxable income up to 20% of their qualified business income, a tax advisor would need to determine whether a particular JV would save taxes as an LLC (or partnership) vs as a corporation.
LPs
LPs are also a relatively common type of entity, for many of the same reasons that LLCs are favoured. They provide limited liability to the limited partners, allow flexibility in defining the partners’ relationship and, unless they elect otherwise, have pass-through taxation. LPs are often used in lieu of an LLC for non-US tax purposes where there are non-US partners from certain jurisdictions. LPs require at least one general partner, and each general partner has unlimited personal liability for the obligations of the partnership. This concern is commonly addressed by:
General Partnerships
Although prevalent historically, general partnerships are now less common because each partner is a general partner with joint and several unlimited personal liability for the obligations and liabilities of the partnership. General partnerships (including LLPs) may regain some popularity because, unlike an LP, an LLC or a corporation, a general partnership is formed without filing with a Secretary of State. Accordingly, general partnerships are not required to file reports under the CTA.
LLPs
While general partnerships do not register with any Secretary of State, many states permit the partnership to register to become a limited liability partnership (LLP), which limits the liability of each general partner to that of a limited partner. Where there is shared management by the partners and an LLC cannot be used, an LLP may be a desirable form of JV entity, provided it is authorised in the jurisdiction of formation and recognised in all other jurisdictions in which the JV conducts business.
Corporations
Corporations are less common types of JVs due to double taxation (a corporation, other than a subchapter S corporation (S-Corp), is subject to income tax on its income, and its shareholders are taxed on distributions paid to them by the corporation). Certain corporate formalities must be followed to shield the shareholders from the liabilities of the corporation, including adopting bylaws, appointing directors and officers, and holding and documenting annual shareholders’ and directors’ meetings. Corporations are also more rigid structures than LLCs with respect to capital calls and distributions. Additionally, the officers and directors of a corporation owe a fiduciary duty to the corporation and its shareholders that cannot be waived or limited, as may be permitted by state laws for LLCs and partnerships. One advantage of a corporation (including S-Corps) is the greater ability to minimise self-employment tax on the earnings of the corporation.
S-Corps
Unlike a standard corporation, but similar to an LLC or a partnership, S-Corps generally have pass-through taxation. They lack the flexibility of an LLC or an LP because there can only be one class of stock, with each shareholder having the same economic rights to receive dividends that are proportional to its ownership interest. Unlike an LLC or a partnership, ownership of an S-Corp is limited to no more than 100 shareholders. In addition, each shareholder must be a citizen or legal resident of the United States, and an individual, although certain trusts and estates or tax-exempt entities are permitted. An S-Corp may be beneficial for a smaller, simple JV where the type and number of owners is not prohibited and there are pro rata distributions, or where self-employment tax minimisation is desired. An S-Corp, however, lacks a certain degree of flexibility with respect to tax considerations in connection with restructurings or recapitalisations of its investments, and a JV that loses its S-Corp status because of impermissible actions may face severe tax penalties.
Contractual JVs
A contractual JV is a JV among two or more venturers that is solely set forth in a contractual arrangement without forming a separate entity that is owned by the venturers. These arrangements are often effective when there is a specific strategic rationale driving the relationship. For example, in a contractual JV where the venturers are not “equal” capital partners, one venturer typically has the expertise, and the other venturer has capital and will make direct investments arranged by the contractual JV. Additionally, a contractual JV may be appropriate for certain industries, for example airlines, where the venturers often are not making a capital investment into a common enterprise but rather are creating a strategic contractual alliance in their operations and profit sharing. Typically, these arrangements are easier to exit as there’s no sale of assets or dissolution of the JV entity. Instead, the venturers part ways and terminate the alliance. Another common example of a contractual JV is a profit participation agreement. In this structure, the profit participant (eg, the seller of real property) is provided the right to receive a negotiated portion of the profits or cash flow of the buyer entity becoming an owner of that entity. This structure is desirable to the owners of that entity because, except as negotiated in the profit participation agreement, the profit participant does not receive the statutory, common law and operating agreement protections that are afforded to an owner of a JV, including rights to inspect the books and records of the entity.
The primary drivers when choosing a type of vehicle or a contractual JV are typically the following:
In most cases, unless there is a special need to have a partnership, a corporation or contractual JV, an LLC likely will be the preferred choice for a JV.
In addition to the federal, state and local laws that govern a particular business conducted by the JV, the following are some key regulatory considerations affecting JVs.
State Entity Law
Regardless of where it will conduct business, a JV entity may be formed under the laws of the particular US state or the District of Columbia (jurisdiction) of its choosing.
In general, the statute of the jurisdiction governing the specific type of JV entity will regulate that entity, except to the extent, if any, that the statute allows the governing documents of the JV to modify the statutory provisions. LLC and LP statutes provide default rules for the relationship of the venturers and the formation, governance, operation and dissolution of the entity that apply where the governing documents are silent on a specific topic. Each LLC and LP statute, however, provides for certain enumerated “non-waivable” provisions that cannot be varied by contract. The non-waivable provisions provide a baseline of statutory protection for the members. Through expansive non-waivable provisions, many jurisdictions take a paternalistic approach to protect unsophisticated investors from fraud or grossly unfair operating agreement provisions. The scope of the non-waivable provisions varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Corporate statutes are binding on corporate JVs, except for provisions that are expressly permitted to be modified through the corporation’s governance documents.
If the JV conducts business in any jurisdiction, other than its jurisdiction of formation, it will need, with certain exceptions, to register with the Secretary of State in each such jurisdiction as a “foreign” entity. In this case, certain affairs of the JV will be governed by the jurisdiction of formation and each jurisdiction in which the JV is registered to do business. As there is an annual fee and reporting requirements for registering to conduct business in a foreign jurisdiction, the venturers may desire to form the JV in the jurisdiction in which it will conduct business. This is often the case for smaller, less sophisticated JVs doing business in a single jurisdiction.
To choose the jurisdiction of formation, the venturers should have a good understanding of the applicable statutory provisions governing the JV, including the non-waivable provisions, and evaluate whether the applicable statutes are attractive for the particular JV.
For most sophisticated JVs, Delaware generally is the jurisdiction of choice for formation, regardless of where the JV will do business. For LLCs and LPs, the Delaware entity statutes expressly recognise the venturers’ right to contract as they please, with very few non-waivable provisions. It is one of the only states that permits the complete waiver of fiduciary duties, other than the implied contractual covenants of good faith and fair dealing. In addition, the Delaware Chancery Court is considered by many to be the best business court in the nation, including in dealing with disputes regarding the internal affairs of all types of JV entities. Moreover, regardless of where they practice, sophisticated JV counsel will be familiar with the entity statutes in Delaware, which are different in every jurisdiction.
SEC and State Securities Laws
An equity interest in a JV may be considered a security under federal and/or state securities laws. Accordingly, the structuring of any JV needs to consider applicable federal securities laws (and any applicable exemptions), as well as the state security statutes in the jurisdiction in which each of the venturers resides. If a JV will be making investments, then rules governing investment companies and investment advisers may also be implicated. Applicable federal securities statutes include, but are not limited to, the Securities Act of 1933 and Regulation D thereunder, the Investment Company Act of 1940 and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. The application of securities laws to JVs can be nuanced and depends highly on the structure of the transaction and the governance of the vehicle.
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN)
The CTA, promulgated FinCEN, went into effect on 1 January 2024, and venturers are grappling with the application of the CTA to various JV structures. A careful analysis of the ownership and governance of the JV needs to be performed to ascertain whether and what a JV is required report to FinCEN under the CTA (see 3.6 Control/Ownership Disclosure Requirements).
Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
The FTC and the Department of Justice (DOJ) have the authority to review certain JV transactions and may enforce competition laws against the venturers and the JV if they are engaged in certain anti-competitive practices.
The AML regulations that apply in Holland & Knight’s jurisdiction are as follows:
CFIUS
This tool allows the US government to review non-US investments in US businesses due to national security concerns, and the President can block risky transactions. Its application is more common today across multiple industries, including real estate. No statute of limitations applies to CFIUS reviews, unless previously approved.
Sanctions
OFAC administers the US sanctions programmes, which precludes JVs from doing business with certain blocked non-US venturers or venturers from embargoed countries.
State Laws
In addition to federal laws, many states also have regulations to address national security issues, including the following.
Venturers need to consider applicable US antitrust regulations, which include the following:
In general, where antitrust challenges may be an issue, venturers should analyse whether the JV has a legitimate pro-competitive purpose, such as the creation of a new product, a reduction in price for customers and market efficiencies. This will need to be measured against the extent to which the JV may give the venturers market power that would not otherwise exist. Venturers need to be considerate in restricting the ability of the other venturers to compete outside of the JVs and other similar anti-competitive conduct, which can raise antitrust concerns and scrutiny.
Not applicable.
CTA
Effective 1 January 2024, unless it meets one of the enumerated exceptions or is outside of the scope of the CTA, each US legal entity that is created by a filing with the Secretary of State is considered a “reporting company” that must file a “CTA report” with FinCEN. This includes non-exempt JVs that are LLCs, LPs (including LLLPs) or corporations (each, a “JV reporting company”) and excludes JVs that are general partnerships as they do not file with a state agency to come into existence. Issues relating to the CTA include the following:
State Transparency Acts
States are also enacting beneficial ownership-reporting laws. The New York LLC Transparency Act, originally enacted on 22 December 2023 and amended on 1 March 2024, is based on the CTA but only applies LLCs. Unlike the CTA, it requires a filing to claim an exemption. Other states, including California and Maryland, are considering adopting their own transparency legislation.
CTA
Since its adoption, the CTA has been fraught with interpretive issues. FinCEN has promulgated regulations, FAQs and other guidance, and FinCEN offers a virtual portal to submit inquiries. JVs and their counsel, however, are struggling with numerous questions that have not yet been addressed by FinCEN. These issues include determination of who is a beneficial owner and the interpretation and application of the related ownership and “substantial control” rules. For example, the JV manager who files a CTA report, among others, may face civil and criminal liability in the event of failure to produce an accurate and timely report of beneficial owner information because the non-managing venturer failed to provide this information.
Non-disclosure Agreement (NDA)
A confidentiality agreement, or NDA, is critical any time that prospective venturers are sharing confidential information. It therefore should be entered into prior to negotiating the terms of the JV and a venturer providing sensitive information to any other venturer. A customary NDA will typically restrict a party or its representatives from disclosing the existence of the JV negotiations and the confidential information of the other party, and from using the other party’s confidential information other than in furtherance of the evaluation and negotiation of the potential transaction.
Term Sheet
Most JVs must be contractually tailored to the needs of the venturers. Negotiating a detailed term sheet, letter of intent or memorandum of understanding (each, a “term sheet”) is often advisable at the outset of negotiations to facilitate alignment between the venturers. A term sheet is much shorter, with less detail, than a JV agreement. Accordingly, using a term sheet to set the material terms of the JV will save substantial time and resources in negotiating and preparing the JV agreement, as well as setting the parties’ expectations. Most term sheets will frequently address equity ownership, capital funding requirements, distributions, governance, and transfer and exit provisions.
Term sheets are usually non-binding, except for certain provisions that are legally binding, which may include the allocation of expenses to negotiate and prepare the term sheet and other deal documents, confidentiality, governing law and, if applicable, an exclusivity period during which the prospective venturers are obligated to negotiate exclusively with each other.
The scope of each term sheet, and which material issues are included (versus saving them for negotiation in the JV agreement), is a question of strategy and negotiation leverage. In some cases, it may be better to save a problematic issue for the JV agreement after the venturers have signed the term sheet and are more invested in the JV, rather than risking killing the deal at the term sheet stage. In other cases, it may be prudent to bring these difficult issues up at the term sheet stage to make sure that the parties are in fact aligned on these issues.
Certain basic information regarding each JV that is an LLC, LP or corporation (such as the entity type, its name and address and the registered agent) is filed with the Secretary of State of its jurisdiction of formation and, if applicable, in each other jurisdiction in which it is qualified to do business as a foreign JV. In addition, an annual report is also required to be filed with the Secretary of State of such jurisdictions, which, depending on the jurisdiction, usually includes the identity of at least one JV manager.
This filed information is of public record. Additional information, including the fact that an entity may be a JV, the identity of the venturers and the scope, terms, business and operations of the JV are not required to be disclosed through these filings and remain confidential. General partnerships do not file with a jurisdiction in order to come into existence and similarly do not file annual reports. The same is true for contractual JVs as there is no JV entity that needs to file.
The extent to which additional details regarding the JV may need to be disclosed depends on the characteristics of the JV and its venturers.
A JV that is an entity is set up by filing an appropriate formation document with the office of the Secretary of State in its jurisdiction of formation. For example, in the State of Delaware, an LLC is formed by filing with the Secretary of State of Delaware a “certificate of formation” signed by an authorised person. There will also need to be a CTA filing, unless an exemption applies. The venturers would enter into a JV agreement (which is not filed) to govern their relationship with respect to the JV.
A JV that will conduct business activities in a jurisdiction other than its jurisdiction of formation will likely be required to register in the applicable jurisdiction to do business as a foreign entity. If the JV will file a federal tax return or other tax related documents, it will need to obtain a federal tax identification number for the JV by filing a Form SS-4 with the Internal Revenue Service.
The venturers of a JV that is an LP or an LLC would execute an operating agreement (JV agreement) in the form of an LP agreement (LPA) or limited liability company agreement (LLCA). If the JV is a corporation, the JV would file a certificate of incorporation and adopt by-laws, and the shareholders may enter into one or more shareholder agreements. The shareholders would elect or appoint directors who would appoint officers of the corporation. A “close corporation” under certain state statutes may be managed by the shareholders without a board of directors.
Regardless of the type of JV entity or its industry, JV agreements are likely to cover the following topics.
Decision-making would depend on the management structure of the JV. For an LLC or LP:
See 6.4 Deadlocks with regard to resolving deadlocks on major decisions.
JVs are typically funded by equity capital contributed by the venturers but may also incorporate in-kind contributions and/or debt from one or more venturers or third parties.
Initial Capital Contributions
The venturers typically provide some amount of capital to the JV to fund initial start-up activities.
Additional Capital Contributions
Additional funding to the JV by the venturers may be mandatory or optional, or mandatory under certain circumstances (such as up to a specific capped amount) and optional otherwise, and venturers generally provide funding on a pro rata basis based on their respective ownership percentages of the JV.
Capital contributions that are mandatory would typically follow an approved budget/business plan or other specific circumstances described in the JV agreement, such as to fund emergency expenses or non-discretionary expenses (eg, debt service, taxes and other mandatory payments).
The managing venturer may be required to fund certain cost overruns in excess of the budget/business plan.
Default
If a capital contribution is mandatory, the JV agreement will typically include punitive consequences for a venturer who fails to fund. These may include punitive (non-pro rata) dilution, default loans by the non-defaulting venturer(s) at escalated interest rates, the ability by the non-defaulting venturer(s) to buy the defaulting venturer’s interest at a discount, lost voting rights and/or, if applicable, removal of the manager. Mandatory capital contributions also may be guaranteed by a deep-pocket affiliate of a venturer.
Debt
JVs may also incur debt (via venturers or third parties) to fund the business, which is often a major decision. One or more of the venturers (or their affiliates) may need to provide guaranties to the lender, and the JV agreement will need to address how liability is allocated among the venturers if a guaranty is triggered.
How deadlocks are resolved is highly negotiated and specific to each JV, and there is no single way to deal with a deadlock. Common ways of resolving deadlocks include the following.
Any number of agreements may be appropriate depending on the type of JV.
Unless it is a “close corporation” that elects otherwise, a JV that is a corporation must have a board of directors. The rights of the venturers to elect or appoint board members would be subject to significant negotiation by the venturers. Unless otherwise provided in the certificate of incorporation, each shareholder will have one vote per share, and board members are elected by a majority of the votes. Different classes of stock, such as preferred vs common equity, may have different voting rights.
Directors of a corporation may have different voting rights, but those rights need to be set forth in the certificate of incorporation in accordance with applicable statutes.
If the corporate JV has more than one class of stock, one class of shares may have greater approval rights or votes per share than another class (which may be nonvoting or have limited voting rights). Shareholders may enter into a shareholder or voting agreement that provides each shareholder with rights to appoint members to the board of directors or approve certain matters.
Because of the formalities that must be observed with respect to corporate entities, venturers more commonly elect to form a JV as an LLC or LP, which provide more contractual and governance flexibility. These entities may be also structured with a board but without all the statutory requirements applicable to corporations.
The directors of a corporate entity owe fiduciary duties to the corporation and its shareholders, comprised of the duty of care and a duty of loyalty. These duties cannot be waived. In a corporate JV, these duties must be exercised by a director notwithstanding that a director may also have a duty to the venturer who appointed him/her or to other parties. To avoid liability, a director who has competing duties should carefully consider in what capacity he/she is acting when making a decision with respect to the JV.
A corporate board may create committees and subcommittees to which it would delegate certain managerial functions.
For LLC or LP JVs, the manager will have certain fiduciary duties under the applicable statute. The JV agreement, however, can modify or eliminate those duties (to the extent permitted by applicable law), and the venturers have flexibility to create bespoke mechanisms for making decisions and resolving conflicts.
In the corporate context, a director who has a conflict of interest must disclose it to the entire board and recuse themself from the applicable decision.
In the case of an LLC or LP, conflicts of interests should be specifically addressed in the JV agreement. Most LLC statutes provide the default rule that such conflicts must be approved by the non-conflicted venturer(s), and this is generally an appropriate provision for the JV agreement for mitigating conflicts. Conflicted transactions also may be required to be on arms-length, market terms. The JV agreement should provide that rights on behalf of the JV under an affiliated agreement are decided solely by the non-affiliated venturer. Otherwise, the affiliated venturer could vote against the JV enforcing the agreement against it or its affiliate.
In some cases, venturers may elect to waive the fiduciary duty of loyalty so that each of the venturers can make JV decisions in their own best interest. If not waived or limited in the JV agreement, the default duty of loyalty (which generally prohibits competing against the JV) under the laws of the applicable jurisdiction would apply to the manager and possibly the venturers.
Each JV must have the right to use the IP it needs to conduct its business, which may include rights to use the names, marks or other IP owned by one of the venturers. IP can either be contributed in kind to the JV via an IP assignment or licensed to the JV. If a venturer is licensing the IP, the other venturers will want to make sure the licence is available for as long as the JV operates and address what happens if the licensor leaves the JV. The licensing party will want to specifically set out applicable usage restrictions and fields of use that govern the JV’s use of any licensed IP.
The JV agreement should also address the venturers’ rights with respect to any new IP that is developed, including who owns it and who has a right to use it. In general, if the JV develops new IP using its own employees or contractors, the JV will likely have rights to such IP. The venturers also need to address what happens to any licensed or newly developed IP upon the dissolution of the JV or if one of the venturers leaves the JV. The JV agreement should carefully delineate each venturer’s IP rights, including how it can be used by each venturer, how it can be licensed to third parties and who is responsible for enforcing the JV’s IP rights against third parties. It is common for each venturer to have the exclusive right to use the IP within a specified field of use.
The venturers will also need to consider how any IP newly developed by the JV will be owned and used upon termination of the JV. The venturers could jointly own the IP with a separate written agreement outlining their respective fields of use. Alternatively, one venturer could own the IP and licence it to the other venturer, subject to usage restrictions. If there are pending applications for IP (eg, patent applications), the venturers will need to consider who controls and pays for its prosecution.
Outside of the public company context, there are no unified federal ESG regulations. However, many states have ESG-related regulations applicable to the entities formed or operating within such state. Caution should be taken to review state regulatory requirements before the formation of a JV to ascertain that the JV would be able to comply with such requirements, with consideration of the following.
Venturers should carefully consider, at the outset, when and how a JV may be terminated. Many JVs are intended for a specific purpose. For example, a real estate development JV may be set up for the purpose of entitling and developing raw land and constructing buildings thereon, and selling the buildings upon completion. Other JVs are created to operate a business without a specific planned termination. Many JV agreements provide that the JV has a term that is perpetual pending an express termination event. Others will set forth a termination date.
For JVs that are LLCs or partnerships, the applicable entity statute of the jurisdiction of its formation will set forth certain default events for dissolution of the JV. These need to be carefully reviewed, as the statute may permit some or all of these events to be waived or changed by the venturers in the JV agreement. The dissolution events for JVs often include:
Most JVs are illiquid investments. Accordingly, in addition to the dissolution provisions, the JV agreement should address the ways in which a venturer may exit the JV. Depending on the relationships of the venturers and their goals, one or more of the following rights may be appropriate.
If a JV is terminated, the venturers need to consider what happens to the JV’s assets. In many cases, it may be appropriate to liquidate the assets and distribute the proceeds to the venturers. If, however, they do not want to liquidate certain assets, such as newly developed IP, the venturers will need to determine how the ownership and use of these assets can be shared among or allocated to one or more venturers.
A terminating JV will need to wind down its business by liquidating its assets, terminating or transferring existing contracts, terminating licences or registrations and paying off creditors. In addition, as required by its entity statute, the JV will need to reserve funds or make provision to pay for any future known or contingent liabilities (eg, indemnities related to a sale of an asset) and file final tax returns, if applicable.
Depending on the JV, the distribution of the net liquidated proceeds will also need to be carefully considered, particularly if there is a waterfall that requires the proceeds to be distributed to the venturers in a particular order of priority. If a venturer has the right to receive distributions based on performance, it may be entitled at liquidation to receive additional proceeds. If the JV has not been successful, or if at the end of the venture a venturer has otherwise received more distributions than it was entitled to, there may be a required “claw-back” (ie, repayment) of certain distributions it previously received. Claw-backs can be a significant point of tension in a termination, and such obligation would often be guaranteed by a deep-pocket guarantor affiliate of the applicable venturer.
The distribution of assets in kind is often a major decision of the venturers. If the JV will be distributing in-kind JV assets to any venturer during the term of the JV or upon dissolution, the JV will need a valuation mechanism for the assets to ensure they are distributed in a manner consistent with the distribution provisions and the economic arrangements of the venturers. If the venturers cannot agree on a value, obtaining a third-party appraisal may be desirable. If distributions in kind are anticipated, the JV agreement should specify the valuation methodology.
If a venturer contributes certain assets to the JV, it may want the right to receive them back through distributions, at appraised or an agreed-upon value, when the JV terminates or that venturer exits.
If there are assets that have been created or developed by the JV, the venturers will need to decide how to share or allocate ownership of those assets when the JV terminates. For example, the rights and responsibilities of the venturers related to jointly developed IP should be carefully spelled out to avoid potential conflict.
800 17th Street N.W.
Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20006
USA
+1 202 955 3000
+1 202 955 5564
wasrec@hklaw.com www.hklaw.com