Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Understanding GAAP
So many contracts contain the phrase “in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles,” but do lawyers really understand what this phrase means or how it may affect a client in any given contract? Generally accepted accounting principles, often referred to simply as GAAP, constitute a body of rules, principles, and practices that is not as well defined as many people think, despite the fact that the fortunes of a company, its managers, and its investors can rise and fall depending on how GAAP is applied to determine the company's financial results. Before placing the above phrase in a contract, a lawyer should have at least a basic understanding of how that phrase may operate within the contractual terms.
U.S. GAAP is the term that describes the rules companies use to prepare financial statements ' the rules that tell companies how to account for transactions and disclose the results. When people refer to GAAP, they generally mean the body of accounting rules developed from a succession of different standard setters. Today, these rules have mostly been rolled into one primary authoritative source known as the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Accounting Standards Codification (“Codification”). However, not all of the rules that companies follow as GAAP are found in the Codification. The Codification excludes some followed guidance and even leaves some of the principles up to industry practice. For example, the very basic definition of an asset is not in the Codification. The term “asset” is defined in a FASB Concepts Statement, but FASB Concepts Statements have been excluded from the Codification and, thus, are non-authoritative literature that, nonetheless, are considered GAAP in the absence of specific guidance in the Codification.
Why GAAP Matters to Contracts
The significant majority of GAAP clauses in contracts require that the financial statements of one or more of the contracting parties be prepared “in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.” For example, a franchise agreement might require a franchisee to prepare its financial statements in accordance with GAAP so the parties can determine the appropriate annual franchise fee. In this context, the phrase is boilerplate language that usually is appropriate. However, there are situations in which a contracting party may want to caveat the boilerplate language, because applying GAAP often is not a straightforward task ' it requires judgment by preparers of financial statements. If contracting parties are unwilling to live with the uncertainty that these types of rules produce, then they should consider revising or caveating the boilerplate language.
Example: Caveating boilerplate language for anticipated changes in GAAP. FASB's proposed changes to the way parties must account for operating leases is a timely example of why franchisees and franchisors may wish to alter boilerplate language in their contracts. A debtor typically violates a debt covenant if its liabilities exceed a certain amount, derived from financial statements prepared in accordance with GAAP. Currently, under GAAP, lessors and lessees do not have to reflect operating leases on their balance sheets. But a proposed change to GAAP would require these entities to report operating leases as both assets and liabilities on their balance sheets: The asset for the lessee would reflect the lessee's right to use the leased property, and the corresponding liability would be the present value of the future lease payments. The resulting change could mean an increase in booked liabilities, which could cause entities to violate their debt covenants, even though the entities would not be in any different economic position after this accounting change than they were before the accounting change.
This adverse consequence could occur if FASB decided to apply these proposed rules to leases existing on the date the rules become effective. Because no one knows whether these proposed rules ultimately will become GAAP or whether they would apply to leases existing on the rules' effective date, parties entering into debt covenants now should consider protecting themselves by adding the specific language that a change to GAAP's lease accounting rules would not, in itself, cause the debt covenants to be violated.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?