7 Mistakes to Avoid When Buying a Business (An M&A “How-To”)

Buying an existing business (along with selling businesses, this is known as “mergers & acquisitions,” or just “M&A”) is a great way to buy into a new business or expand your existing business. From an expansion standpoint, in fast moving markets or industries that are tough to penetrate because the market leaders are well-entrenched, buying your way in may be the obvious preferred choice compared to starting from scratch or growing your existing business organically.

However, M&A isn’t simple. Lots of owner equity (shareholder value) has been lost with poor acquisitions – either choosing target acquisitions poorly or executing poorly (execution issues show up pre-closing in the process of getting the deal done, as well as post-closing during the M&A integration phase). To buy a business for the right price and make the whole deal work from a cost and profit (upside) perspective – for it to be more advantageous to buy than to build the business, you need knowledge and discipline. I can’t give you the discipline, although I can pass on some knowledge.

Common Mistakes I’ve Seen People Make When Buying a Business As an M&A Lawyer 

As an M&A lawyer I have represented hundreds of buyers and sellers of businesses (high-flying operations and distressed asset sales and everything in between) – through acquisitions, mergers, and spin-offs. I have also sold one of my own businesses and I was on the corporate development team for a publicly-traded media company, tasked with identifying acquisition targets and negotiating and closing the purchase of other media companies.

Throughout the years, with different clients and companies in many different industries (buying and selling technology companies, retail and online retail businesses, service companies, engineering and other professional firms, energy companies, home-based and single website businesses, etc.), I have identified a handful of mistakes merger and acquisition buyers make consistently. These mistakes include financial, operational (execution-type), and legal issues. If you make these mistakes, you may not get your deal closed or, even worse, you may close the deal and regret it. On the other hand, avoid these mistakes, and you have a huge head start toward making M&A work successfully for you. Purchasing an ongoing business may not be a simple process, although it doesn’t need to be difficult or loaded with risk.

About this M&A How-To Article

Buyers of businesses and companies in all types of industries and all sizes make these mistakes. This article is geared a bit more toward lower to middle market M&A activity ($2 million – $50 million). My M&A law practice is geared toward the lower end of this range, although I pull from other positions I’ve had working on larger M&A deals. Buyers of smaller businesses – M&A transactions in the “main street” (less than $2 million) part of the market will find plenty of useful advice in this article, as well, although certain issues (e.g., integration teams) aren’t as relevant to acquirers of very small businesses – those deals are a little simpler – not without any integration challenges, but not lots of moving parts requiring large deal teams.

If you are selling your business, you should be aware of these M&A buyer mistakes. After all, it’s important to you, once you have agreed to the deal terms, that the buyer is able to successfully close the acquisition. Some buyer-side mistakes may be so significant or fundamental that they jeopardize the closing of the deal. You want to be aware of these mistakes so that you can work with the buyer to resolve them and get your deal closed.

Also, these mistakes can be costly, eroding value for the company you spent so much time and effort building. If you have an earn out (an earn-out is an agreement for the buyer to pay the seller additional money toward the purchase price if the company performs to certain levels or achieves certain metrics in the year or two (an M&A earn out could be longer) after the closing. Or, you may be staying on with the company or care about the employees who are going to work for the acquirer (I hope you care about them!) – for all these reasons, understanding buyer mistakes is good business for sellers of companies.  And I recommend that you also read my article,  7 Mistakes to Avoid When Selling Your Business

Okay, let’s jump right in and look at the first of seven common mistakes purchasers of companies make.

#1 – Clinging to Plans No Matter What

Planning for a successful M&A transaction is important. And, your plans should be detailed and guide the acquisition process. As an M&A attorney, I highly advise you spend time planning. However, your plans are ultimately of little value if they aren’t fluid. General Helmuth von Moltke (I know, I don’t know who he is either) said, “No battle plan survives contact with the enemy.” That’s true in battle and in M&A. Your acquisition and closing plans should be a roadmap — flexible enough to bend or break or be scrapped entirely as new needs and considerations arise.

M&A acquirers, especially larger companies with formal M&A deal processes (companies who have done hundreds, if not thousands, of acquisitions and have large deal teams and specific workflow), often make the mistake of emphasizing process to the point where it becomes the only thing that matters. But, M&A is complex, and curveballs come up that irreversibly damage deadlines. There are lots of moving parts in mergers and acquisition. And, M&A is about relationships. You are dealing with humans, which means emotions will impact actions and nothing will go exactly as scripted. Be sure to build in some flexibility and allow the process to run its natural course to account for these curveballs.

Recently I was working with a couple buying a franchise business from an existing franchisee. They were super sharp individuals and had done their homework. We negotiated a solid asset purchase agreement (more on stock purchase agreements vs. asset purchase agreements vs. merger agreements below) and things were going great. When buying a franchise, there is a big extra moving piece. The buyer needs permission from the franchisor (and the existing franchisee needs permission to sell), so there is the process of getting approval and working through the franchise agreement and the due diligence (due diligence is the process of kicking the tires of the company you are planning to buy – reviewing their financials and contracts (for assignment issues), searching for litigation and liens, and generally getting confirmation that the business you think you are buying is actually the business you are buying) around the franchise disclosure document and talking to existing and former franchisees (you want to talk to people other than the seller who may not be a great source of negative information given their desire to sell the business and get paid!). My clients were also getting an SBA loan, so there were a lot of things to manage to get to closing.

We were a couple weeks away from closing and issues arose during due diligence – concerns we needed to work through, things we needed to understand to decide if the franchises were worth what my client was paying or even worth buying at all. My clients were very concerned about closing on time, to the point where they were willing to short change the due diligence process. This happens often – it’s easy to get focused on a closing timeline. I encouraged them to step back and realize that closing a couple days later than originally expected isn’t a big deal. We had built that flexibility into our purchase agreement. The language we negotiated in the asset purchase agreement ensured we could take a little extra time to close without giving the seller a right to walk away. Of course, the seller and brokers would be a little disappointed and apply some pressure to close quickly (they always want to close ASAP!), although it was much more important for my clients to take whatever time they needed, time they were entitled to take contractually-speaking, to be certain they were making a good decision for them.

Another common situation where your M&A process needs to be flexible is with communicating to employees of the seller. If your communication schedule says you will talk to the seller’s employees one day before closing and you find out from the seller three weeks before closing that there are rumors about the sale and seller employees are nervous, talk to the employees right now, assuming you have the seller’s permission. When you are selling your business, when to tell employees that you are selling the company, and when to allow the buyer of your business to talk to your employees, is an important and often difficult decision. But, the seller should be as concerned as you, the buyer, to keep employees engaged and staying with the business post-closing or you will have the right to walk away from the deal (assuming your purchase agreement is written properly to protect you as the buyer).

Plans are important – they set expectations and help guide decisions. Proper planning is useful in spotting issues – things that weren’t expected may not be slight curveballs, they may be huge problems. So, plan, plan, and plan. However, don’t be so rigid that you miss opportunities or gloss over significant issues. There’s no sense in blindly following a plan that is not bespoke to the needs of your specific M&A transaction – meaning, don’t get caught up in the timeline and miss the point of the process – to uncover problems and to get the deal done properly, not simply to get the deal done.

#2 – Creating Unwieldy Integration Teams

Experienced M&A buyers who are buying a larger company often form many teams, each with many members, to manage the negotiation, closing, and integration stages of the M&A process. These teams often impose their own complex steps and plans on the transition. While detailed plans are great, they should not be complex. Detailed and complex are too different things. For example, you should have a very detailed communication schedule (I am referring here to communicating with existing employees of your business (assuming you have one) and employees of the business you’re buying) – who you are talking to, when, and what you will say. What you say, though, should be simple sound bites. I don’t mean it should be vapid, but don’t confuse the heck out of your employees. What you tell them about why the acquisition makes sense isn’t what you tell the investment bankers. They won’t understand it and it’s never good to confuse employees (or vendors or customers for that matter!).

Where possible, keep your deal teams small. Groups of five or more people have difficulty setting their next meeting date. You don’t want deal team sizes to add unnecessary complexity to the deal. Things will be challenging enough. Where possible, see if a competent individual or two individuals (one from either side) can handle responsibilities rather than relying on large teams or committees. Streamline where possible. Leaner teams are more efficient and efficiency matters with M&A.

Yes, more people equals more involvement and people want to be involved. But, consensus committees aren’t built for the speed of M&A. Instead, host a few town hall meetings to explain to employees what’s going on and let them ask questions (that you should answer fully and honestly). Let them know they can approach anyone and ask any other questions – have an open-door policy. But, that doesn’t mean you need 14 employees on the committee to discuss how to integrate your legacy accounting system with the buyer’s accounting system. It will take forever to get it done.

I also understand that more voices should (theoretically) yield a better result – the so-called, “wisdom of the crowd.” I get it. But, trust me, you need to build a strategy and M&A plan that can move fast. Analyze, discuss, make decisions and move – fast. And, keep moving. Big teams don’t help here. They will bog you down.

One specific aspect of the M&A process when buying a business that calls for appointing only one individual from the seller and one individual from the buyer is the management of due diligence – collecting information from the seller and passing questions back to the seller (acquisition due diligence is iterative – as a buyer, you’ll review things and follow up with requests for other information and for answers to questions about what you reviewed and that back and forth will continue for a few rounds). With one contact person from each of the purchaser and seller, due diligence can be a relatively smooth process. However, when the seller and the purchaser have multiple people involved – the purchaser throwing questions and requests at the seller and the seller answering them and posting new documents to the online data room (i.e., lots of people doing this on each side of the table) — things can get unwieldy fast. Questions fall through the cracks and the organizational structure of the data room (data rooms are online repositories of information about the target selling company) can quickly devolve.

#3 – Communicating Infrequently and With “All Hype”

Like all of us, buyers are prone to communicate infrequently when their attention is pulled in many directions. M&A buyers and sellers get busy – everyone will have too much to do and remembering to keep the employees who aren’t on the front line up-to-date can easily take a backseat to putting out deal fires. Don’t let it take a backseat. Communicate frequently and consistently.

Establish weekly or biweekly status conference calls with major stakeholders. Your professional teams (M&A lawyers, accountants, bankers and brokers, etc.) should be meeting more often than that, but you at least want to hear from all sides weekly or so. Require that someone take notes during these meetings (your meetings with your advisors and internal deal teams) and share them so assignments and roles are clear. You would be surprised by how much more smoothly deals go when communication happens frequently and reliably. Frequent communication stabilizes the process by focusing and energizing participants rather than leaving them confused and perplexed, which is what they will be without intentional and regular communication.

Communicate regularly with your advisors and with the seller. Schedule update calls at least weekly, if not more frequently. Keep calls and meetings brief. Even if the call is 10 minutes to say things are going great, that’s worthwhile. M&A is exciting and stressful. In the M&A context, emotions run high and people are prone to experience extreme feelings, including worry. If the seller is worried about you walking away, that can sometimes be to your benefit. But, not always. Be intentional and communicate often – it will help ensure your deal is closed and closed with the seller feeling good about things. That’s particularly important if the seller is staying on with the business in some capacity. In that case, the relationship starts at the closing table, it doesn’t end there. Even if the seller isn’t staying on, I believe M&A deals should close with both sides feeling good about the deal and about the other side. You can be relational without being weak. This is a people game.

#4 – Not Intentionally Selecting the Right Deal Structure

When you buy a business, you can buy its assets or its stock (in an LLC, there is no stock, the equity interests are called membership interests; in partnerships, they’re called partnership interests). Even though “M&A” stands for mergers and acquisitions, most M&A deals are acquisitions – a buyer purchases either the stock or the assets of a target selling company. Mergers are quite uncommon in the main street ($2 million or less) and lower-middle market (between $2 million and approximately $50 million) portion of the M&A market (although mergers are more common above $25 million or so). The amount of professional time – M&A attorneys, accountants, tax advisors, etc. — in getting a merger done right tends to not make much sense for smaller deals – professional advisors aren’t cheap. Well, good professional advisors aren’t cheap (there is that old saying that nothing is more expensive than a cheap lawyer). Plus, the reason for a merger is typically driven by taxation concerns and those concerns are more significant (more complex, at least) with larger deal sizes.

When you buy the assets of a company, you individually purchase each asset (it’s done more efficiently with a list in an asset purchase agreement and you don’t need to itemize every pencil, although you are technically transferring each and every asset of the seller to your company). The assets are assigned at closing, generally with a Bill of Sale, Assignment, and Assumption Agreement.

If you purchase the stock or other equity interests of the selling business, you don’t touch the assets – they aren’t assigned or transferred at all. They stay in place, owned by the selling business. Instead, you step into the seller’s shoes and now own the selling business. The only thing that changes hands is the stock or equity. Think about a Master Services Agreement between XYZ Inc. and ABC Company. XYZ is owned by John Smith. If you buy the stock of XYZ from John Smith, the Master Services Agreement is still between XYZ and ABC. Nothing changed there. The only thing that changed is who owns XYZ – you own the equity of XYZ, not John.

Generally speaking, buyers want to buy assets and sellers want to sell stock. Most business brokers market companies as asset sales – that’s typical. They also do it in many states, like in Texas where I have my law offices (Austin and Houston), because you need a securities broker-deal license to market stock or other securities. Business brokers (unlike investment bankers), rarely have the correct license to market a selling business as a stock sale. For buyers, this issue is good – it means you are generally easily able to purchase assets and, again, that’s what most buyers want to do.

One reason buyers of businesses want to purchase assets is because they can cherry-pick the assets they want and leave behind any assets they don’t want. And, typically, buyers don’t want to acquire any liabilities, which is fairly easy to do with an asset purchase (as with all issues in law, avoiding taking on liabilities of the business you’re purchasing isn’t always straight forward. For more about this, read How To Avoid Seller Liabilities When Buying a Company. Another reason M&A buyers like to purchase assets, not stock, of a selling business, is for tax reasons. Buyers are able to increase the book value of the assets of the selling company to fair market value and depreciate them from those higher levels, whereas if you purchase the stock of a seller, you take over the assets on your books at their pre-sale values.

When selling a business, sellers generally prefer to sell stock because it’s easier to unload the liabilities on the purchaser. The purchaser can still carve out liabilities and shift responsibility back to a seller through the representations, warranties, covenants, and escrow holdback in a purchase agreement, but generally the seller is still more likely to walk away from certain liabilities by structuring a deal as a stock deal. And, selling stock may have more attractive tax outcomes for the seller of a business, especially a business structured as a c-corporation with two levels of taxation. Stock or other equity interests (this all holds true for corporations, LLCs, partnerships and other entities) held for longer than one year are usually subject to favorable long-term capital gains rates.

On larger deals ($25MM+), it’s not uncommon for sellers and buyers of companies to spend significant time with their business lawyers, accountants, tax advisors and other professionals to think through and structure the deal properly. Since M&A buyers and sellers often have different interests and goals, deal structure is often heavily negotiated on these deals. On smaller M&A deals, my experience is that time is rarely spent thinking through deal structure – at least not in depth with the level of analysis it deserves. Since business brokers generally only market companies as asset sales, sellers don’t think much about this.

Again, as a buyer you may want to buy the assets of the business you’re buying, although that is not always the case. There are times when, even as a buyer, you may be better purchasing stock or equity than assets. This could happen due to complex issues around assigning contracts and title to other assets. Remember my example about the Master Services Agreement. Buying XYZ stock from John may not require the approval of ABC Company, whereas assigning the Master Services Agreement as part of an asset purchase might. If you assign the agreement, you replace XYZ with your company – that’s a change that most counterparties to contracts seek to prohibit upfront. If the contracts are long-term and favorable for the seller, you may not want to rock the boat by approaching the counterparties to the contracts to ask for consents to assignment (Note: you may need to approach them on certain contracts whether you structure the deal as a stock purchase or an asset purchase. For example, commercial leases often have broad anti-assignment clauses that prohibit transfers of a contract even through an indirect stock sale, as well) Also, the tax reasons to buy assets may be less compelling in a business that hasn’t been around for a long time and has not depreciated its assets much.

#5 – Not Getting Employee Incentive Plans Right

When buying a business employees incentive plans are typically an important aspect of M&A deals. You will spend a lot of time working on this issue if some members of the seller management team or other key employees are staying on with the business after closing. Employees don’t like change. Once they hear their company is in the process of being sold, the best and most mobile employees will put out feelers, looking for other opportunities. That doesn’t mean they’ll jump ship, but they will polish up their resume and touch base with recruiters, which means they may entertain offers. If those employees are important to making the deal work, you will need to take steps to keep them around. Compensation isn’t everything, of course. Employees will want to know how their job will change and understand the buyer’s strategies and management styles – those things may push away employees or help keep them around.

But, money matters, too. You probably don’t want to increase salaries unless they’re sub-market or you are normalizing them to salaries in your existing company. Instead, consider equity incentives or profit-sharing plans tied to performance. Stay bonuses – a bonus for sticking around – are useful tools, as well. Although, be sensitive to setting up a structure where the compensation is so great in the short-term (as it can be with an initial stay bonus), that when you go back to something more normal, it looks like a big step-down to the employee. Put the plans in place before you employees start to leave. Once they accept offers, it may be too late to keep them and, if you can, you will likely pay a lot more than if you put the right incentive plans in place to keep employees from looking in the first place.

Incentive plans can quickly become overly complex and burdensome. Create simple, clean incentive plans that are easily understood by management to enable management to energize the team and help them target the right activities and results. Make the metrics simple to understand – employees should be able to easily tell where they are on their performance goals. Keep the complex algorithmic formulas for your technology solutions and for the investment bankers, not your compensation plans.

#6 – Making Decisions Solely To Keep the Peace 

I worked for a company once that made a large (just under $1 billion) strategic acquisition of an international company operating in a slightly different part of our industry. Financially, the acquisition was sold based on cross-selling opportunities – we had similar customer bases and different, yet complementary, service offerings. The idea was to train each sales staff to sell the other’s services. If you are already talking to the customer about x, why not mention y? Sounds logical, right? I could have added an eighth mistake to this article – “basing financial forecasts on cross-selling success!” It is tough to make cross-selling work. Sales staff know what they know and (as with many other types of employees or even just people generally) they are not always very interested in learning new products and risking current relationships by pushing new products. It is possible to make cross-selling work, of course – you would start by structuring the right types of incentive plans (as we just discussed).

The mistake my company made in that deal wasn’t simply hinging the deal’s success on cross-selling. They made another mistake in the execution of the deal. The entire strategy for that M&A transaction – success or failure – turned on cross-selling. And, integration is required to make cross-selling work effectively. It’s difficult to convince a successful sales person to pitch new products. It’s even tougher when those products are branded by another company. And, to customers, the cross-sell is less impactful when it feels like it’s coming from a different company. To analogize, occasionally I miss out on engaging a new client because they want to go with a large firm. The perception is a large firm has more resources and can handle any business matter that arises. I handle partner and founder formations and disputes, capital raising, M&A, just about any business contract, although I don’t litigate or do anything with bankruptcy. I have colleagues who handle these matters and they’re just a phone call away – not much, if at all, different than if they were down the hall. But, perception can be reality at times. The pitch from a larger firm – lots of attorneys, covering a broad range of business issues, integrated and talking together about your matter – has appeal. It’s similar with cross-selling products. If the sales person tells you about another service that their company (a company you like and trust) offers, you’re more likely to consider using that other service than if they tell you about the same service but offered by a third party company (one you’ve never worked with). Integration tie things together, makes them succinct and helps them resonate with employees and customers.

To get that acquisition done, our CEO promised the selling companies (we bought a parent holding company with lots of subsidiaries, operating under a few different brands) that they could continue to operate as individual brands. This decision never made sense given the strategic goals of the acquisition and the need to integrate the entire organization. Our CEO did it purely to appease the selling management team and to get the deal done. He didn’t need to do this. The sellers, like almost all sellers, are anxious to sell if the price is right. Issues come up pre-closing, such as salaries of seller employee post-closing, employee benefit plans post-closing, and the name of the selling companies post-closing, that are issues the seller cares about. No question, the seller cares. But, the seller rarely cares about them even remotely as close to the level at which they care about getting the deal done and getting paid. Sellers will almost always bend on these issues. In our case, there were no other acquirers. It wasn’t an auction where there are three other companies waiting to buy. It was just us. He could have easily gotten buy-in, before the closing, to rebrand the companies and integrate them fully.

M&A is a relationship-driven process, especially when the selling company management will stay on after the acquisition as they did in our deal. I’m not suggesting you jam something down their throats or not listen to their requests. Nobody wants to work for the “my-way-or-the-highway” executive in today’s world, but you don’t want to compromise on the strategy. You should listen to other opinions and requests, including management of the company you’re buying, and you should be flexible when you can be. But, if a particular action is critical to the success of the deal, like rebranding and integration was to the success of our deal, don’t bend. This happens so often. CEOs want to get deals done and they give on things they shouldn’t – issues that affect transaction success.

Even worse, they say one thing before closing and change the deal later. That’s a recipe for disaster. The selling company management will be mad. They may not be able to stop it (it’s rare to build restrictive operational covenants into a stock purchase or asset purchase agreement, so buyers are usually free to change the business as they want), but if they’re still working for the business, they may look for another opportunity or be less engaged than they would otherwise. Breaking a promise, even if it doesn’t have legal ramifications, is likely to have performance ramifications.

Another example of what to avoid is keeping and promoting certain members of management teams even though they are not the best individuals for their roles. Many business buyers make this mistake, thereby decreasing the chances of M&A success. Don’t do this if you don’t absolutely have to do it to get the deal and, even then, be very cautious – some deals aren’t meant to be closed.

#7 – Succumbing to the Sunk Cost Fallacy

For a buyer who has put time and money into a negotiation to buy a company, it is tempting to be committed to closing the deal no matter what. It’s always tough to walk away once you have made an investment in something. However, staying committed to a course of action simply because of the expense you’ve already incurred when that course of action doesn’t make sense on a go-forward basis is a mistake, one referred to in economic parlance as the “sunk cost fallacy.”

Sunk costs are costs that are already spent, ones you can’t recover, hence they are “sunk.” They are gone and not coming back. Rationally, you should always look at your current course of action based only on your most recent projections of how that course of action will play out and the cost remaining to complete the course of action weighed against other possible courses of action (their likely outcomes and cost to complete).

To see the sunk cost fallacy at work, consider two hypothetical companies that each hire a new salesperson. Company A pays the salesperson a sign-on bonus of $25,000. Company B doesn’t pay a sign-on bonus at all. Two months in, each salesperson is severely underperforming. For this example, both sales people are missing the mark exactly the same – they are both equally terrible (hey, it’s a hypothetical, I’m allowed to take liberties like saying two people are performing exactly equal!). Do you think each company will be equally as quick to let the new salesperson go and hire a replacement? No, they won’t. Company A will almost certainly stick with their salesperson for a longer time. They will be motivated by a desire to not have wasted the $25,000 sign-on bonus. But, that money is gone and it’s not coming back. At the point in time Company B decides their hire was a mistake, Company A should make the same decision. But, they usually won’t. They’ll cling to the sunk cost and make a decision that is not as rational as it ought to be.

In the M&A context of buying a company, you may find yourself tens of thousands of dollars into negotiations, advisor fees, and due diligence fees. You may have even passed on other opportunities. Those things often drive a buyer to close a deal that ends up not looking as great as you get closer to closing. You should make the decision to walk away or stay in the deal without worrying about the money that is already spent. That money is spent no matter what. The only question ought to be, is it a good deal to buy this company and spend the money that has not already been spent? Would another deal be a better option? If you do enough deals, you will hear very intelligent people say things like, “we have already spent $x and all this time, so let’s do this deal.” That’s a mistake. A common one, but a big mistake.


When buying a business whether it is main street or lower middle market business, you need to be aware of common buyer mistakes. If these mistakes work their way into your M&A deal process, they can undermine relationships, impede deal momentum, and jeopardize the closing. Worse, you may get the deal closed, and face the consequences of those mistakes after closing when it’s harder to make things work properly. Taking the steps outlined in this article will help you avoid, or at least minimize, the negative impact of these issues, thereby improving the chances of your merger and acquisition transaction actually closing and proving to be a profitable transaction.

If you are interested in talking about a merger or acquisition, strategies for approaching the deal, or any other business law needs, please get in touch. I have offices in Austin and Houston, Texas (I have active lawyer licenses in Delaware and Texas), although, depending on what you’re doing, I may be able to help you no matter where you are in the world. And, if I can’t help you, I’m always happy to try to find someone who can.

Author: Brett Cenkus

Brett Cenkus is a business attorney with 18+ years experience based in Austin, Texas. He has worked with a variety of businesses and has clients throughout Texas as well as many technology clients throughout the United States. Brett is a Harvard Law graduate with a sharply seasoned mind and an entrepreneurial heart. As a founder of 6 companies himself, he is especially passionate about helping startups succeed. In 2016 Brett was named the winner in the Individual category for RecognizeGood’s Ethics in Business & Community Award. He offers businesses solutions that are in sync with their culture, goals and values. You can learn more about Brett by visiting the About page on this website.