分享嘉宾 | Charles K. Whitehead，康奈尔法学院Myron C. Taylor 商法学讲席教授
采编｜金蕾，康奈尔法学院LL.M.
翻译｜杨竣名，上海交通大学凯原法学院
审校｜张旭东，UCB LL.M.
编辑 | 吴青，BU LL.M. & 浙大PhD candidate
致谢 | 余曦，康奈尔法学院LL.M.
教授简介
Charles K. Whitehead是康奈尔大学法学院的Myron C. Taylor商法学讲席教授、康奈尔科技园区法律、技术和创业项目的创始董事，专门研究商业组织、资本市场、金融机构和交易以及并购。在投身学术研究之前，Whitehead教授在纽约、伦敦和东京的多家跨国金融机构代理客户，并担任高级法务和管理职位，包括担任野村证券、所罗门兄弟和花旗集团的董事总经理。作为学者，Whitehead教授曾任哥伦比亚法学院的研究员；2006年起任教于波士顿大学法学院；2008年作为Marc & Beth Goldberg杰出法学客座教授访问康奈尔法学院；2009年起任教于康奈尔法学院。Whitehead教授毕业于哥伦比亚法学院和康奈尔大学，曾任美国联邦第二巡回上诉法院Hon. Ellsworth A. Van Graafeiland法官的法律助理。
目录导引
a 跨国公司并购中的里程碑和建议方法
a) 世界上最完美的合同≠成功的交易
b) 商业驱动谈判，商业成果驱动交易结构
c) 最好的律师知道他们可以让步什么
b 律所与其客户之间的服务协议中应包含哪些关键条款
a) 取决于客户是谁及其与律所的关系
a. In a merger or acquisition among multinational companies, could you please advise on the milestones and suggested approach?
您能否告诉我们跨国公司并购中的里程碑和建议方法？
Answer to Question a
对问题a的回答
Whether it’s a big or little transaction, the real work often starts after the contract is signed. Most law students, because your focus is on legal documents, think that the real work involves drafting and negotiating the M&A documents. There’s certainly a lot of work involved in drafting and negotiating, but the real challenge is integrating the two businesses after the contract has been signed and, later on, after the deal has closed.
无论是大型交易还是小型交易，真正的工作通常在合同签订后才开始。由于大多数法学生的学习重点是法律文件，所以他们认为真正的工作是并购合同的起草和谈判。起草和谈判当然涉及到很多工作，但真正的挑战实际上是合同签订以及交易完成后的两家公司的合并。
Example
例子
In multinational firms, you often have different pay scales depending on the type of company, location, and so forth. Employees in one company may be paid $10 an hour, while employees in the other company are paid $20 an hour for similar work. What will you do when you integrate these two businesses? Will you raise all salaries to $20? The former-$10 employees will love you. But now you have raised the cost of the acquisition, perhaps substantially. Alternatively, will you fire all the $20 employees? You will be quite unpopular, but it may make the most sense for the company.
在跨国公司中，根据公司类型、地点等的不同，通常有不同的薪酬等级。一些公司员工的时薪为10美元，而在工作相似的情况下，另一些公司的员工时薪为20美元。当你合并这两家公司时，你会怎么做？你会把所有的时薪都提高到20美元吗？之前时薪是10美元的员工会爱你，但收购成本将会被提高，可能是大幅提高。或者，你会解雇所有时薪为20美元的员工吗？你可能会变得不受欢迎，但是这对公司而言最为合理。
That’s a very stark example, but there are more subtle things, like how do you integrate software, communications, and computer servers; how do you get everyone the same or similar insurance coverage; and so forth? There are thousands of things to consider after the deal has been signed.
这是个非常鲜明的例子，但还有更微妙的事情。比如，如何合并软件系统、通信系统和计算机服务器？如何让每个人都享受相同或相似的保险？在交易签署后，有数以千计的事情需要考虑。
What this means, as a good lawyer, is you should think about these kinds of issues, talk to your client about them, even at the contract drafting stage because they are just the kinds of things that are important to your client. Understanding them may affect how you structure the deal or negotiate the agreement. You could have the most perfectly drafted contract in the world. But if the businesses can’t be integrated, it will be a failed deal. 
这意味着，作为一名优秀律师，即使在合同起草阶段，你也应该考虑这些问题并告知你的客户，因为这些是对你的客户很重要的事情。了解它们可能会影响你如何构建交易或谈判协议。你也许拥有世界上最完美的合同，但如果公司不能合并，那将是一场失败的交易。
Knowing this, you want to start thinking about what the business outcome should be and what the business issues are from the start.
了解这一点，你就会开始从头考虑（合并）公司结果应该是什么以及公司的问题是什么。
Example
例子
You represent the target company. To what extent should the target be worried about its employees? To what extent should it consider changes in salaries or insurance coverage? Maybe the answer is “not at all.” After all, after it’s acquired, the target will be controlled by somebody else. Nevertheless, perhaps there are still things the target’s managers are worried about. To understand this, you need to consult with your client. To what extent is the client worried about changes in the way the business will be run? Perhaps they want some assurance that salaries won’t be changed. Is this something that can be reflected in the contract?
假如你代表目标公司，公司应该在多大程度上担心它的员工？公司应该在多大程度上担心工资以及保险的变化？也许答案是“一点也不需要”。毕竟公司被收购后，它将会被其他人控制。然而，目标公司的经理们可能仍然担心一些事情。要了解这一点，你需要咨询你的客户。客户在多大程度上担心公司运营方式的变化？也许他们想要一些比如薪水不会改变的保证，这是否可以反映在合同中？
Alternatively, assume you represent the acquirer. You may want to consider what sorts of target liabilities the acquirer may be assuming. To what extent do these liabilities decrease the value of the target business? To what extent do they raise issues that your client needs to address in the newly-merged company?
或者，假设你代表收购方。你可能需要考虑收购方可能承担目标公司什么样的责任。这些责任在多大程度上降低了目标企业的价值？它们在多大程度上引发了你的客户需要在新合并公司中解决的问题？
These are examples of the kinds of things you need to think about, even as you’re drafting the contract. Because the real effort is after the deal is signed – and anticipating those issues in the contract may help address them in the future.
这些是你需要考虑的事情的例子，即使你正在起草合同。因为真正的努力是在交易签署之后——预测合同中的这些问题可能有助于在未来解决这些问题。
Contracts, however, can only do so much. They are reflective of the business deal. At some level, there will be business risks that the businesspeople will just need to take. And this may be reflected in how you decide to structure the contract.
然而，合同只能做这么多，它们只是商业交易的反映。在某种程度上，商人需要承担一定商业风险，这可能反映在你决定如何构建合同上。
Example
例子
My first solo M&A deal arose when I was less than six months in practice.[1]
我第一次单独进行并购交易是在我踏入律师业六个月内。
[1] Background: I was called by the head of the law firm’s M&A practice on Christmas, and he asked me to be in Chicago on December 26th. I happened to be traveling in Texas, so I only had a very lightweight suit – much too light for Chicago. But, fortunately, I had a necktie. When I walked into the conference room in Chicago, the business guys were there, so was an in-house lawyer, but the partner who had called me was not there. There was a lot of snow and so I thought perhaps his plane had been delayed. When I called his office to speak with his assistant, he picked up the phone. I asked, “What are you doing in New York? I'm here in Chicago.” And he said, “The client only wants you to work on this deal.” I explained that I was at the firm for less than six months, but he said he thought (perhaps it was a prayer?) I would be fine.
背景：圣诞节那天，律所并购业务部的负责人打电话给我，他让我在12月26日到芝加哥。我碰巧在得克萨斯州旅行，所以我只有一件非常轻便的西装——对芝加哥来说太轻薄了。但是幸运的是，我有一条领带。当我走进芝加哥的会议室时，客户的经理和公司律师都在，但打电话给我的合伙人却不在。因为那个时候雪很大，所以我想也许他的飞机晚点了。当我打电话到他的办公室与他的助手通话时，他接了电话。我问：“你在纽约做什么？我在芝加哥。” 他说，“客户只希望你参与这笔交易。” 我解释说我在公司不到六个月，但他说他认为（也许是祈祷？）我会把一切做好的。
It was an asset acquisition. Our client was the acquirer. The understanding was that the in-house lawyer would do most of the negotiation, and I would simply be there to support her. She proceeded over the next three or four hours to concede everything. She gave up points that she shouldn't give up and, apparently, was blind to much of the contract.
那是一次资产收购，我们的客户是收购方。我的理解是，公司律师会进行大部分谈判，而我只是在那里支持她。在接下来的三四个小时里，她几乎让步了一切。她放弃了她本不应该放弃的谈判点，显然她对合同的大部分内容视而不见。
We were negotiating against two M&A partners from the Skadden Arps law firm. They were just beating us up, and they could tell I was very uncomfortable. In fact, at one point they asked for a concession, the in-house lawyer gave it to them, and one of the partners looked at me and looked at his colleague and said, “You’re right. We really can’t take this from you.” This was after three or four hours, and we needed a break.
我们当时正在与Skadden Arps律所的两位并购合伙人进行谈判，他们正在“狠打”我们，能看出我很不安。事实上，在一个点上他们要求让步，公司律师让步了，其中一位合伙人看着我，然后看着他的搭档说：“你说得对，我们不应该向你们提出这个要求。”这是在三四个小时之后，（我意识到）我们必须打破这种局面。
The partner in New York and I had a call with the client’s businesspeople and in-house lawyer. Neither the partner nor I had known that the client was buying the assets at what they estimated was 20% of their real value. In other words, they were getting an incredibly good price for the assets. And so they wanted to move quickly and close the deal before the end of the year.
我和纽约的合伙人与客户的经理、公司律师打了电话。合伙人和我都不知道客户在以他们估计的实际价值的20%购买资产。换句话说，他们在以难以置信的低价得到这些资产。因此，他们希望迅速采取行动，在年底前完成交易。
When your client is buying assets at an 80% discount, it means you can be more comfortable giving up things in the contract. Not everything. The in-house lawyer still conceded too much and we had to take much of it back. But a lot of points become negotiable once you understand the goals of the businesspeople, as we finally learned in this case.
当您的客户以80%的折扣购买资产时，这意味着你可以更放心地放弃合同中的内容。但不是放弃一切，公司律师仍然让步太多，我们不得不收回许多。但是，一旦你了解了目标，很多谈判点就变得可以商量，正如我们在这次资产收购中最终了解到的那样。
Understanding the business rationale, what the pressures are and the client’s ultimate goals, makes structuring and negotiating the deal a lot easier to do. What does this mean? – The business drives the negotiation, and the business outcome drives the structure of the deal.
了解商业原理、客户压力以及客户的最终目标，可以更轻松地构建和谈判交易。这是什么意思？商业驱动谈判，商业成果驱动交易结构。
This approach is really no different regardless of the transactional practice you pursue, including deals outside of M&A. You’re not the businessperson, but you’d better understand the business and the expected outcomes. You need to learn how the businesspeople are thinking about the deal and what they think is valuable, because that should be reflected in how you structure, draft, and negotiate the contract.
无论你从事的交易实践如何（包括并购之外的交易），这种方法都没有什么不同。你不是商人，但你最好应该了解商业。你需要了解商人的思维方式以及他们认可的价值，因为这需要反映在你构建、起草和谈判合同的方式中。
You will do lots of deals with multiple clients. There will come a time when you may better understand parts of the business than the businesspeople in the sense that you’ll have seen 20 or 30 different ways to do the deal and that experience can be valuable in representing your client. Maybe there's a particular problem they’re faced with, and based on your experience, you suggest ways for the client to address the issue. You may also be aware of a way to structure the deal to address the particular issue the businesspeople are wrestling with.
你将和各式各样的客户处理大量交易。总有一天，你实际上会比商人更了解业务的某个部分，因为你已经看过20或者30种不同的交易方式，而那些经验对你代表的客户而言非常有价值。也许他们面临一个特殊的问题，根据你的经验，你可以给客户建议方法来解决问题。你可能想到一种构建交易的方法，以解决正困扰商人的某个特定问题。
When you start practice, take advantage of the fact that you’re junior, just starting your career. There is a natural tendency among most people not to want to show how much they don’t know. But most of your questions are likely to be questions that others have too. Being junior makes it easier to ask the question because you’re junior and people know this. 
当你开始法律实践，利用好你还是初学者的身份并开始法律职业生涯。大多数人的自然倾向是不想展示他们不知道多少，但事实上，你提出的大多数问题都是其他人同样有的问题。作为初学者更方便提问，因为你是初学者而且人们知道这一点。
The same thing is true when you’re negotiating. When I negotiated deals, even as a senior lawyer, which word do you think I used the most? It was “why.” The other lawyer would say, “I need X,” and I would ask, “why?” Why is this important? Because if I understand what the other side is thinking, then knowing what my client wants, I can structure the deal or draft the contract efficiently and, more importantly, do so in a way that favors my client’s position.
谈判时也是如此。当我谈判交易时，即使我是资深律师的时候，你认为我用得最多的是哪个词？那是“为什么”。别的律师说“我需要X”，我就会问“为什么”。为什么这个重要？因为如果我了解对方的想法，然后知道我的客户想要什么，我就可以有效地构建交易或起草合同，更重要的是，以有利于我客户立场的方式这样做。
Understanding the business is critical to being a good lawyer. Ask “why” when you’re negotiating a deal.
了解商业是成为一名优秀律师的关键。在交易谈判时，问“为什么”。
It’s something that happens naturally during negotiations.
这是谈判过程中自然发生的事情。
Example
例子
You and I are negotiating an acquisition, my client is the acquirer, and I want a representation in the contract that the target (your client) is not subject to any litigation. You say, “I can't give you that representation,” and, of course, I ask “why?” You answer that there are some lawsuits, A, B, and C, and I ask you to describe what they are. Based on what you tell me, I say, “Fine, let’s redraft the language to reflect what you just told me--there are no target lawsuits other than A, B, and C.” So, just based on that exchange, I’ve learned about litigation affecting the target and how significant it is, and it’s something I can tell my client. It may affect the purchase price if it’s significant.
你和我正在就收购进行谈判，我的客户是收购方，我希望在合同的陈述中写明目标公司（你的客户）不受任何诉讼的约束。你说：“我不能给你那个陈述。”我当然会问：“为什么？” 你回答说有一些诉讼，A、B 和 C，我会请你描述一下它们是什么。根据你告诉我的内容，我说：“好吧，让我们重新起草合同用语以反映你刚刚告诉我的内容——除了A、B和C之外，目标公司没有其他诉讼。” 因此，仅基于那次交流，我就了解了影响目标公司的诉讼案件及其严重程度，这是我可以告诉我的客户的事情。如果它很严重，它可能会影响收购价格。
What you don’t know is my client doesn’t really care about target lawsuits. I know this, but you don’t. So, I am happy to structure the representation in a way that reflects your concerns, that there are no target lawsuits other than A, B, and C. In fact, if you had asked me, I might have told you my client doesn’t care about target litigation. But, in this scenario, I’ve managed to keep the representation in the contract, modified to reflect your comments, and perhaps this gives my client a bit more comfort about what’s in the target’s business. And if your client later breaches the representation, perhaps my client can renegotiate or otherwise adjust the purchase price.
你不知道的是，我的客户并不真正关心目标公司的诉讼情况。我知道这一点，但你不知道。因此，我乐于以反映你的担忧的方式撰写陈述，即除了A、B和C之外没有目标诉讼。事实上，如果你问我，我可能会告诉你我的客户不关心目标诉讼。但是，在这种情况下，我设法保留了合同中的陈述，进行了修改以反映你的评论，也许这让我的客户对目标公司业务的内容更加放心。如果你的客户后来违反了合同的陈述条款，也许我的客户可以重新谈判或以其他方式调整收购价格。
The point is, the better I understand how you’re thinking about things, the better I can structure the deal in a way that favors my client.
关键是，我越理解你的想法，我就越能更好地以有利于我客户的方式构建交易。
There’s a corollary to this point, which is that the best lawyers know what they can concede. Law school may give you a skewed view of transactional lawyering, because many deals you see in casebooks are failed deals. That’s why they wound up in litigation. Although Cornell has a number of classes that focus on transactional practice, by and large, the bulk of what you study in law school focuses on litigation. There may not be a lot your client can or will concede when it’s being sued, after the deal has failed. But, in the transactional world, you may be able to concede a lot. 
这一点有一个推论，那就是最好的律师知道他们可以让步什么。法学院可能会让你对交易律师的理解有偏差，因为你在案例书中看到的许多交易都是失败的交易。这就是他们在诉讼中失败的原因。尽管康奈尔大学有许多专注于交易实践的课程，但总的来说，你在法学院学习的大部分内容都集中在诉讼上。在交易失败后，你的客户在被起诉时可能不能或不会让步太多。但是，在交易的世界里，你可能会做出很多让步。
Example
例子
You and I are negotiating again. I know I can give up the representation on litigation; recall, maybe it’s not a big deal for my client. I asked you to give me the no-litigation representation. You said, “I can’t do this.” Again, I asked, “why?”, and you told me about lawsuits A, B, and C. Hearing this, I might respond (in an exaggerated voice), “My God, three lawsuits? Talk me through what these lawsuits are. Now I understand why you can’t give me this representation but modifying this representation would be a big concession on our part.”
假如你和我在谈判。我知道我可以放弃诉讼代理，回想起来，这对我的客户而言也许不是什么大问题。我要你给我一份无讼陈述。你会说：“我做不到。”同样地，我会问：“为什么呢？”然后你会告诉我诉讼A、B和C。听到这个，我可能（用夸张的语气）回答：“天哪，三起诉讼？告诉我这些诉讼是什么。现在我就明白为什么你不能给出无讼陈述，但是修改这个陈述对我们来说是一个很大的让步。”
I’ll go on to say, “OK, now I understand the situation, and we won’t push the point. We’ll take out the representation on litigation or we’ll modify it, but I’ll also need to speak with my client. Maybe we can say there is no material litigation, but in any event we’ll structure the representation in a way that you don’t need to worry.” What have I just done? I gave you something. And now I will expect something back, won’t I?
我会继续说：“好吧，现在我了解情况了，我们不会强调这一点。我们将取消或修改诉讼陈述，但我还需要与我的客户商量。也许我们可以说没有实质性的诉讼，但无论如何我们都会以一种你不需要担心的方式来撰写陈述。” 我刚刚做了什么？我给了你一些东西，现在我期望得到一些回报，不是吗？
Knowing what I can concede, and how to do it, means I can get the deal done faster. It means I can focus on those things that are most important to my client. As a result, I can also more vigorously advocate for my client.
知道我可以让步什么，以及如何做到这一点，意味着我可以更快地完成交易。这意味着我可以专注于那些对我的客户最重要的事情。因此，我也可以更有力地为我的客户辩护。
b. Could you please advise what the key clauses should be in a service agreement between a law firm and its client?
您认为律所与其客户之间的服务协议中应包含哪些关键条款？
Answer to Question b
对问题b的回答
Law firms approach this question differently, and it will often depend on who the client is and its relationship with the law firm. A service agreement with Grandma Whitehead will be quite different from a service agreement with Goldman Sachs.
律所对这个问题的处理方式不同，这通常取决于客户是谁及其与律所的关系。与Whitehead奶奶签订的服务协议和与高盛签订的服务协议完全不同。
Grandma Whitehead may have a limited budget. I will probably have a very detailed retainer agreement that makes clear what I am doing for her. There will probably be details in the retainer agreement that describe what I’ll do, what I won’t do, and what you will do.
Whitehead奶奶的预算可能有限。我可能会有一份非常详细的聘用协议，明确说明我正为她做什么。聘用协议中可能会详细说明我会做什么、我不会做什么以及你会做什么。
With Goldman Sachs, there may not be any agreement at all. It's Goldman Sachs! Do we think we need a retainer agreement with Goldman Sachs? Probably we should agree on how much I'm getting paid, and how I calculate my fee, but not much more.
与高盛可能根本没有任何协议。那是高盛！我们会认为我们需要与高盛签订聘用协议吗？也许我们应该就我得到多少报酬以及如何计算我的费用达成一致，但仅此而已。
With a large client, there may be an agreement on who is assigned to the client’s matters (the client doesn’t want 20 expensive partners working on one deal) and their hourly billable rates. When you're talking about large law firms that represent large corporate clients, maybe the agreement is outcome-oriented – a particular fee based on a particular deal being done. Alternatively, maybe there’s a cap on the amount that can be billed. For M&A, sometimes there are special rates for when a deal doesn’t close. If the deal happens, I will charge the full amount. If the deal doesn’t happen, it’s a “broken deal fee,” possibly a 50% discount. 
对于大客户，可能会就分配给客户事项的人员（客户不希望20个昂贵的合伙人处理一项交易）及其每小时计费费率达成协议。当你谈论代表大型企业客户的大型律师事务所时，也许该协议是结果导向的——基于正在进行的特定交易的特定费用。或者，也许对可以计费的金额有一个上限。对于并购，有时在交易未完成时会有特殊费率。如果交易发生了，我将收取全额费用。如果交易没有发生，那就是“交易分手费”，可能是50%的折扣。
Like we discussed in response to the prior question, you need to understand your client’s business and goals. With Grandma Whitehead, on a limited budget, I know there are specific things I need to get done. I will do A, B, and C within whatever budget we agree. There may be different fee levels based on the different things I must do. If I’m counseling her in the office, there will be one fee. If I need to go to trial, it will be a much higher fee.
就像我们在回答上一个问题时讨论的那样，你需要了解客户的业务和目标。对于预算有限的Whitehead奶奶，我知道我需要完成一些具体的事情。我会在我们同意的任何预算范围内做A、B和C。根据我必须做的不同事情，可能会有不同的费用水平。如果我在办公室为她提供咨询，将收取一笔费用。如果我需要去出庭，那将是一个更高的费用。
Again, it depends on the economics. I am much more likely to be less worried about whether Goldman Sachs can pay my bill, and more interested in making sure I get the second, third, fourth, and fifth deal and so on than I am from Grandma Whitehead. Those things will drive whether or not there’s an agreement and the terms of that agreement.
同样，这取决于经济状况。与Whitehead奶奶相比，我更可能不太担心高盛能否支付我的账单，并且对确保我能获得第二、第三、第四和第五笔交易等等更感兴趣。无论是否有协议以及该协议的条款如何，这些事情更可能推动合作。
Regarding particular terms that are important, generally they are the scope of work, fee amount, and timeframe, depending on what you’re asking me to do. Sometimes there are disclaimers to the extent you're worried about potential conflicts of interest.
关于重要的特定条款，通常是工作范围、费用金额和时间表，具体取决于你要求我做什么。有时会对你所的担心潜在利益冲突有免责声明。
Example
例子
If I’m representing four founders who are starting a business, what are the potential conflicts among them? Each founder may not think about the business in the same way. So maybe I include a disclaimer relating to conflicts if I’m representing all four of them. Usually, it’s agreed with the lawyer that the lawyer will not be involved if a matter ever goes to trial. He or she is simply the transactional lawyer.
如果我代表四个正在创业的创始人，他们之间的潜在冲突是什么？每个创始人可能不会以相同的方式考虑商业。因此，如果我代表所有四个人，也许我会加上与冲突有关的免责声明。通常情况下，在律师中会商定如果案件进入审判阶段，律师将不会参与其中。他/她只是交易律师。
注：欢迎在评论区向嘉宾提问
--End--
往期回顾：
人物专访1｜我在Law Review收获了什么?-公司法总&斯坦福编辑
人物专访2｜我在Law Review收获了什么?- 美国律师&加州法评编辑
人物专访3｜我在Law Journal收获了什么?-高校教师&纽约大学期刊编辑
人物专访4｜从华尔街到康奈尔，Whitehead教授谈职业规划
人物专访5｜访加州伯克利名师Fernholz暨新书发布资讯（附视频寄语）
继续阅读
阅读原文
关键词
it’s
问题
律师
in the
方式