Using A Rights Plan to Protect Your NOL Assets

Jan 19, 2016

Reading Time : 1 min

Pursuant to Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code, an “ownership change” is trigged if one or more 5 percent shareholders of the subject corporation increase their ownership in the corporation by more than 50 percent during the shorter of (i) the prior three-year period or (ii) the period since the date of the last ownership change. These determinations are potentially complex, and special rules apply, including that entities acting in concert be treated as a 5 percent shareholder if they meet the 5 percent threshold in the aggregate. If an “ownership change” occurs, the ability of the corporation to use NOLs to offset future taxable income is subject to limitations that can severely impair the value of the NOL asset.

Since Section 382 tracks 5 percent shareholders, an NOL rights plan typically has a lower trigger (often 4.99 percent) as compared to the 10-20 percent threshold, which is more typical in a traditional rights plan. Since boards may be concerned that an NOL rights plan may adversely impact investment in the company’s stock, such rights plans may also include provisions to avoid an unwanted triggering if there is no threat to the NOL asset. For example, a board may waive the application of the trigger if it determines that an acquisition is unlikely to limit the value of the NOL asset.

It is worth noting that, although NOL rights plans are certainly protective, they cannot prevent a stockholder from acquiring additional shares; they merely act as a deterrent. In addition, they do not prevent or restrict stock sales that may also trigger an ownership change under the tax rules. However, if a significant risk exists that the ability of a corporation to use NOL carryforwards may be impaired, a board should carefully consider its options, including a rights plan, to protect this valuable asset.

Share This Insight

Categories

Previous Entries

Speaking Energy

June 23, 2026

On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued an order to Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (MISO) directing MISO and MISO transmission owners to show cause as to why MISO’s tariff should not be found to be unjust and unreasonable (Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., 195 FERC ¶ 61,212 (2026) (Order)) because it fails to sufficiently:

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

June 23, 2026

On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued an order to PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. directing PJM and PJM transmission owners to show cause as to why PJM’s tariff should not be found to be unjust and unreasonable (PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 195 FERC ¶ 61,211 (2026) (the Order)) because it fails to sufficiently:

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

June 22, 2026

On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued an order to Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (SPP) directing SPP and SPP transmission owners to show cause as to why SPP’s tariff should not be unjust and unreasonable (Southwest Power Pool, Inc., 195 FERC ¶ 61,213 (2026) (Order)) because it fails to sufficiently:

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

June 18, 2026

On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued show cause orders under section 206 of the Federal Power Act to PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM), Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (MISO), Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (SPP), California Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO), ISO New England Inc. (ISO-NE) and New York Independent System Operator, Inc. (NYISO), together with their transmission owners, directing each region to justify or reform the tariff provisions governing how data centers and other large loads connect to and receive service from the transmission grid. The orders are part of FERC’s broader response to rapidly increasing electricity demand, particularly from data centers and other large loads, and advance the objectives of the Secretary of Energy’s October 2025 Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANOPR) by seeking to accelerate “speed to power” while preserving grid reliability, affordability and consumer protections. 

...

Read More

© 2026 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.