Minh UongWhen the Berry Plastics Group, a container and packaging company, went public last October, it generated up to $350 million in tax savings. But the company won’t collect the bulk of the benefits. Rather, Berry Plastics will hand over 85 percent of the savings, in cash, to its former private equity owners.
The obscure tax strategy is the latest technique that private equity firms are using to extract money from their companies, in this case long after the initial public offering.
In a typical buyout, the owners make money by sprucing up the operations and selling the business to another company or public investors. Private equity firms have also found ways to profit before the so-called exit with special one-time dividends and annual management fees.
Now, buyout specialists are increasingly collecting continuing payouts from their former portfolio companies. The strategy, known as an income tax receivable agreement, has been quietly employed in dozens of recent offerings backed by private equity, including those involving PBF Energy, Vantiv and Dynavox.
While relatively rare, the strategy, referred to as a supercharged I.P.O., has proved to be controversial. To some tax experts, the technique amounts to financial engineering, depriving the companies of cash. Berry Plastics, for example, has to make payments to its one-time private equity owners, Apollo Global Management and Graham Partners, through 2016.
“It drains money out of the company that could be used for purposes that benefit all the shareholders,” said Robert Willens, a corporate tax and accounting expert in New York who coined the term “supercharged I.P.O.”
Eva Schmitz, a spokeswoman for Berry Plastics, declined to comment, as did Charles Zehren, a spokesman for Apollo. Graham Partners did not return multiple calls for comment.
A form of the strategy, known as a tax-sharing agreement, has been around for decades. Through such deals, a parent company and its subsidiary agree to share any losses that could lower their tax bills.
Private equity firms started to take notice of the technique in 2007 after the $3.7 billion I.P.O. of the Blackstone Group. Before the offering, the private equity firm used complex partnership structures to create large deductions for good will, a type of intangible asset. Blackstone’s partners then got to keep 85 percent of the deductions, or $864 million, securities filings show.
Private equity firms are now applying the strategy to their own investments. Income tax receivable agreements account for only about one in 50 I.P.O.’s backed by private equity, according to some estimates, but industry experts say they are on the rise.
“The investment banks are spending a lot of time on models for these deals,” said Eric Sloan, a principal in merger-and-acquisition services at the accounting firm Deloitte. “We are going to see more of these deals,” he said, adding that “it brings new value to the table.”
Under the typical agreement, the private equity portfolio company transfers partnership interests to a newly formed entity. The transfers bolster the market value of certain items, like tax credits, operating losses, good will, amortization and property depreciation. In doing so, the related entity captures the tax savings on those items.
“It’s meant to extricate cash value from taxes,” said Warren P. Kean, a tax lawyer focused on partnerships at K&L Gates in Charlotte, N.C. “Private equity firms have realized that there’s a benefit here in unlocking the tax value associated with portfolio companies.”
Private equity firms view the deals as the “pearl in the oyster shell,” because the strategy generates valuable tax assets that did not exist or were not usable and converts them into cash.
As part of the deal, companies sign a long-term contract with the private equity owners to hand over 85 percent of their current and future tax savings. The newly public companies keep the remaining 15 percent, providing it with deductions that they otherwise would not have had.
It’s lucrative for the private equity firms. The payments, which can last as long as 15 years, create a tidy income stream, typically taxed at the lower capital gains rate. The Graham Packaging Company, a maker of plastic containers, expects to pay its former owners $200 million, according to securities filings; Emdeon, a billing company, $151 million; and National CineMedia, a cinema advertiser, more than $196 million.
But some tax experts take issue with the strategy.
“They involve millions, often billions, of dollars in cash transfers from newly public companies to a small group of pre-I.P.O. owners,” Victor Fleischer, a tax professor at the University of Colorado, and Nancy Staudt, a public policy professor at the University of Southern California, wrote in a 2013 study. (Mr. Fleischer is a contributor to DealBook.) The study said the primary reason for the deals was tax arbitrage.
Another potential issue is that sophisticated investors do not necessarily understand the deals, either. The agreements typically warrant just a few paragraphs in a company’s I.P.O. filings.
And the companies are generally on the hook for the cash payments, even if their profits deteriorate. Berry Plastics lost $10 million in the last quarter and already carries a costly debt load of $4.6 billion. In its I.P.O. filing, the company cautioned that the tax deal could affect its liquidity.


17 Comments
Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
The comments section is closed. To submit a letter to the editor for publication, write to letters@nytimes.com.
Taxprof
NYC March 20, 2013The comments, and to a large extent the article itself, are a fine example of half the story producing knee-jerk reactions from those whose biases predominate over their rationality. The "tax benefits" that are passed back to the private equity firm (or other controlling shareholder prior to the IPO) are benefits that only arise because the private equity firm incurs a corresponding tax detriment at the time of the IPO. In almost every case, the private equity firm could have structured the transaction in such a way as to avoid, or at least significantly defer, that tax detriment, and there would be no tax benefit for the public company to share. The lynchpin of the transaction is that the public is likely to pay pretty much the same price for the stock in the IPO regardless of whether the tax benefit is created or not. But even if the purchasers take the tax-sharing arrangement into account, they are paying a lower price for the stock that reflects the net value they are purchasing.
Bashing private equity firms has, of course, become a very in-vogue thing to do. Sadly, it tends to go hand-in-hand with an absence of serious analysis.
chris m
NYC March 28, 2013"even if the purchasers take the tax-sharing arrangement into account, they are paying a lower price for the stock that reflects the net value they are purchasing."
This is true only if most IPO investors are aware of and understand the tax-sharing agreement. And there is no evidence that is the case. Otherwise the price paid does not reflect the net value they are purchasing.
JR
NYC March 20, 2013"The agreements typically warrant just a few paragraphs in a company’s I.P.O. filings." Really? Not sure these guys are going to "disclosure" their way out of a shareholder lawsuit. Not too many attorneys; too many greedy and conniving people.
Tony Frank
Chicago March 18, 2013These pe guys truly are thieves as bad as wall street, hedge funds and venture capitalists combined.
jsb
providence March 17, 2013It doesn't have to be this way. PE could be a saving grace but instead we have vulture capitalism. To say nothing of what accountancy firms have become- big firms push boundaries in grey areas of law while apparently carrying little legal liability of their own.
Drew
Dunwoody, GA March 16, 2013Such financial shenanigans illustrate the lack of "actual value" that PE firms bring to the table. Instead of building sustainable business, the goal here is extracting cash as legal ransom for being associated with the "masters of the universe". The net result is aggregated funds in fewer hands - slowing the velocity of money though the economy - lowering the lock water level (not raising it). To top it off, this tax loophole is a subsidy that is many times worse than other direct transfers because it is done with obfuscation, secrecy, and deliberate over complexity.
Just getting started....
NYC March 16, 2013Hey its entrepreneurship and warrants carried interest tax treatment so long as the donations to Congress keep coming in!
S Mirow
Phila PA March 14, 2013Schapiro moved from SEC Chair to the GE board. Obama wants Mary Jo White, who claims to be a good person & so can, & will, be tough on Wall Street as SEC Chair. Eric Holder finally revealed that he directed the Justice Dept not to pursue the largest Financial Services firms because it would disrupt the markets.
How can the SEC permit or justify PE to sell a business on the public markets through an IPO that is still a captive to the seller? It is beyond belief that those hidden ties to the seller would be found & understood by anyone who has not been a party to drafting such an agreement. Is there anything else to term such a device but fraud or theft? Is there any question that the SEC should have barred such IPOs?
To answer Ms White - no, you are not capable of the change needed to police the markets & lead in devising new regulations - you have become a creature of the Financial Services Industry & will always find the arguments of your former colleagues & clients not only reasonable but compelling.
Eric Holder should resign & return to his former lucrative law practice because he will find ever new excuses not to protect the public from what courts have referred to as the ever changing forms of fraud.
As always the public is the real loser here as ever more attempts to save by investing in exchange listed stocks are frustrated by these hidden devices that raise the failure rate for those companies.
What is really new here - wealth being taken from the 99% for the 1%?
TrendMethods.com
NYC March 14, 2013It's what the Private Equity boys do for a living and this should be no surpirise.
However, it's always interesting to see how "creative" they become in their ability to squeeze more cash out of companies.
Jack
Boston, MA March 14, 2013Squeezing cash out while they are also creating new jobs? Unlikely!
John
is a trusted commenter Hartford March 14, 2013There are a few exceptions but PE firms are basically about squeezing money out of their prey before trying to dump them on a bigger fool. They're not called chop shops for nothing. The mystery to me is what reasonably intelligent investor buys these debt loaded turkeys from PE firms particularly when they're stuck with poison pills like this.
Tom
Maryland March 14, 2013Ahh.. that would be pension fund managers who subsequent walk through PE revolving doors.
plang1
rhode island March 13, 2013private equity better known as trash funds
Chris
Delray Beach, Florida (for now) March 13, 2013“It’s meant to extricate cash value from taxes,” This just makes me ill!
Tom
Maryland March 13, 2013The private investor abandoned the market years ago. Who cares if the pension funds get the shaft? Right? Right?
Saint999
Albuquerque March 13, 2013And this is called investment? This gets the capital gains tax break because it's investment? The tax code has been so twisted and corrupted it's a disgrace. The US Government needs to quintuple the IRS legal staff. Keep these "capitalists" in court 24/7 and publicize every issue so the public has some idea of the special deals that suck revenue from the government and from companies that produce things we need and hire people who need jobs.
Peter Scannell
Massachusetts March 13, 2013It's no wonder that the 1% have been able to abscond with 40% of the wealth in this nation. Where exactly is the "super IPO" tax strategy located in our nations tax code.
17 Comments
Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
The comments section is closed. To submit a letter to the editor for publication, write to letters@nytimes.com.