TO LLC OR NOT TO LLC: THAT, IS THE QUESTION!

nat rosasco • January 9, 2013

Limited Liability Companies, or “LLC” as they are more commonly known, have been the “entity du jour” over the past decade, and I’ve been asked by many a client what the real reasons are to choose an LLC over, for example, an S-Corporation, a Partnership or a traditional C-Corporation.  Choosing the most appropriate structure for […] The post TO LLC OR NOT TO LLC: THAT, IS THE QUESTION! appeared first on GGHH Law.

Limited Liability Companies, or “LLC” as they are more commonly known, have been the “entity du jour” over the past decade, and I’ve been asked by many a client what the real reasons are to choose an LLC over, for example, an S-Corporation, a Partnership or a traditional C-Corporation.  Choosing the most appropriate structure for your business can be confusing even for the most learned legal practitioner, and I find that most attorneys know which entity they should recommend but don’t necessarily know why.  In this article we’ll explore the differences between two of the most popular business structures, the LLC and the Subchapter S Corporation, or “S-Corp”.

The LLC and S-Corp are popular business structures for a variety of reasons, some of which the two have in common.  Both the LLC and the S-Corp are creatures of statute, meaning they are separate legal entities created by a state filing and subject to state-mandated formalities, such as filing annual reports and paying periodic filing fees.  Both entities are taxed like sole proprietorships (in the case of a single owner or shareholder) and partnerships (in the case of multiple owners or shareholders), meaning the company itself doesn’t pay federal taxes, but rather all company profits and losses are “passed through” to the individual owners, who report these tax attributes on their individual federal tax returns.  These two business structures also share another key feature in that they have the ability to separate the liabilities of the business from the personal assets of the owners, thereby shielding those assets from business obligations.  Despite the similarities, LLCs and S-Corps do differ in several ways, including their operational flexibility, administrative requirements, profit-sharing and employment tax implications, all of which we will explore in this article.

WHAT IS AN LLC ANYWAY?

According to the Internal Revenue Service, an LLC is an entity “designed to provide the limited liability features of a corporation and the tax efficiencies and operational flexibility of a partnership”.  Although many times you will hear practitioners refer to an LLC as a “limited liability corporation”, you should note that an LLC is not actually a corporation.  While both corporations and LLCs are created as a matter of state law, they are separate entities with entirely different governing rules and regulations.  Nevertheless, the LLC is a flexible form of business enterprise that combines elements of both the corporate and partnership structures.  As a pass-through entity, all profits and losses generated in an LLC are reported by the individual owners, or “members” as they are called, on their individual federal tax returns.  What differentiates the LLC from a partnership, however, is the limit of the liability for which a member is responsible, which in most cases will be limited to such member’s investment in the company.

HOW ABOUT AN S-CORP?

Like a C corporation, an S-Corp is a corporation organized pursuant to the laws of the state in which it is formed.  As in the case of an LLC, however, S-Corps resemble partnerships in the manner in which they are taxed, meaning all aspects of income, deductions and tax credits flow through to the shareholders, regardless of whether cash distributions or contributions are made.  S-Corps must make an affirmative election under Subchapter S of Chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code to be taxed as a partnership and the following requirements must be met in order to do so:

–        The entity making the election must be a domestic corporation;

–        The entity making the election may only have one class of stock;

–        The entity making the election may not have more than 100 shareholders;

–        Shareholders of the entity making the election must, subject to certain limited exceptions, be U.S. citizens and natural persons; and

–        Profits and losses allocated to the entity’s shareholders must be in proportion to each  shareholder’s interest in the business.

SO WHICH ONE IS RIGHT FOR MY BUSINESS?

As indicated above, LLCs and S-Corps differ in several ways, including but not necessarily limited to their operational flexibility, administrative requirements, profit-sharing and employment tax implications.  Understanding the differences will dictate which of these two popular entities are right for your business.

One of the primary differences between an LLC and an S-Corp is the amount of administrative formality that is required to maintain an S-Corp.  Remember, an S-Corp is in fact a corporation and therefore requires compliance with certain administrative formalities such as formation of a board of directors, annual reporting and other mandatory business filings, adopting by-laws, issuing stock, annual shareholder and director meetings with mandatory record keeping and other administrative requirements that a typical small business may not be prepared to deal with, particularly one with a single owner.  An LLC on the other hand requires far fewer forms for registration and generally lower start-up costs.  Limited Liability Company’s are not generally required to have formal meetings nor maintain minutes of meetings, though record keeping is still highly recommended.  With fewer administrative formalities to maintain, LLCs may be more difficult to penetrate by those seeking to challenge its shield of liability protection.  Generally, as long as the members of the LLC do not “co-mingle” funds, imposing liability beyond the LLC itself may be very difficult.

Another distinguishing feature between the LLC and the S-Corp is the operational and management flexibility inherent in an LLC versus the rigid structure of an S-Corp.  Most matters relating to governance of an LLC can be handled in one document, typically termed an “Operating Agreement” or “Limited Liability Company Agreement”, which is the governing document of the company.  Most state codes in fact allow members of an LLC to essentially override the LLC statute by otherwise agreeing in the operating agreement how the LLC will be governed.  The owners of an LLC can decide to be self-managed (or, “member-managed” as it is otherwise known) or manager-managed.  When member-managed, the LLC is run in the same manner as a partnership where the partners handle the day-to-day operations of the company.  When manager-managed, the LLC is run similar to a corporation, where the members may elect one or more people to handle the day-to-day decisions of the company.  S-Corps on the other hand, have directors and officers, where the board of directors makes major decisions and officers are elected to manage the company’s daily business.  Of course, an LLC also has the flexibility to “elect” officers if they so choose, but many business owners appreciate the simplicity of their businesses being managed by a manager they have the authority to appoint or remove in their sole discretion.

When organizing a new company involving more than one owner, particular attention should be paid to the allocation of the company’s profits and losses as well as the distribution of available capital.  S-Corporations, which are restricted to one class of stock, must allocate profits and losses pro-rata to its shareholders based on their relative share of ownership.  Thus, a shareholder who owns 25% of the company’s stock reports a distribution of 25% of the company’s year-end taxable profit or loss, as the case may be, on the shareholder’s individual federal tax return.  The one class of stock restriction governing S-Corps does not apply to LLCs, thereby allowing flexibility in planning distributions and allocations of profits and losses.  A business organized as an LLC may allocate profits and losses disproportionately among its members, taking into account factors such as sweat equity, preferred returns for members contributing more capital and other arrangements forming the basis for so-called “special allocations”.  The IRS may scrutinize such special allocations to ensure members are not attempting to evade taxation by allocating larger losses to members in higher income tax brackets, thus it is important to structure the allocations so that they have what the IRS terms “substantial economic effect”.  Consider the case of four members who form an LLC where three members put up an equal amount of cash while the fourth member signs a note to contribute his or her share in installments over the first five years of the business.  The operating agreement may provide that the first three members receive a larger distributive share of profits and losses for those five years during which the fourth member’s note is outstanding, even though all four members may each have an equal 25% ownership interest in the company.  The IRS should respect this arrangement given there is a legitimate financial basis for the special allocation (i.e., it has “substantial economic effect”).  It should be noted that an LLC’s structural flexibility would allow an operating agreement governing the foregoing company to provide for other restrictions, such as a limit on the fourth member’s ability to vote on certain issues affecting the company until the note is paid in full.  It is this structural flexibility that motivates many  entrepreneurs to choose the LLC for their new businesses.

While not generally a significant consideration for most new small business owners, it is important to note that owners of LLCs are considered to be self-employed and must therefore pay the 15.3% self-employment tax contributions towards Medicare and Social Security (note that the rate was effectively reduced in 2012 to 13.3% but is slated to return to 15.3% in 2013).  Thus, all the income of an LLC is subject to self-employment tax whereas a corporation may retain some of that income after payment of the owner’s salary and treat it as unearned income not subject to self-employment.  Of course, nothing is free in the eyes of the IRS as any such unearned income will be taxed at some point when it is distributed to the company’s shareholders as taxable dividend income.

While LLCs have been the entity of choice in recent years, the flexibility associated with its ownership and management structure in multi-member businesses comes with a price.  That price is reflected in what can be complex operating agreements reflecting the practical realities of an agreement among the owners.  In such situations it is important to remember that an operating agreement is not an “off-the-shelf” document that a practitioner or formation service can quickly plug names into and deliver without a thorough understanding of the member’s relative expectations.  LLC operating agreements may need to combine complex provisions usually found in shareholder agreements, separate buy-sell agreements, partnership agreements and even employment agreements.  Such provisions may affect issues such as capital contributions to the business, allocation and distribution of profits and losses as described above, members’ voting rights, admitting new members or removing existing ones, restrictions on transfer of membership interests and many others.  Each member should retain their own counsel experienced in business organizations to advise them of their relative rights and obligations before entering into any such agreement.

Jordan Uditsky is a partner in the corporate practice of Garelli, Grogan, Hesse & Hauert.  He brings a diverse legal and business background to the firm, with a particular emphasis on the representation of startups and emerging companies, commercial real estate transactions, tax and estate planning.  He advises businesses in a broad range of general corporate and corporate transactional matters, including business organizations and choice of entity issues, financing and private equity, mergers, acquisitions and joint ventures as well as business restructurings.  Mr. Uditsky also employs his experience as a business owner to advise companies on regulatory issues and compliance matters, employment policies and legal issues related to their general operations and business strategy.

Garelli Grogan Hesse & Hauert offers sophisticated yet cost effective, practical solutions to our clients’ legal challenges.  We strive to understand not only the legal issue but our clients’ business goals as well and craft tailored solutions to help them succeed.  Our attorneys represent businesses and individuals throughout the Midwest in matters that include commercial litigation, securities, business counseling and transactions, commercial real estate, estate planning and family law.  For more information contact Jordan Uditsky at (630)833-5533 x12 or juditsky@gghhlaw.com.

Speak to an Attorney

Related Posts

What Practice Owners Need to Understand About Post-Closing Liability “Caps” and “Baskets” in a Dental Practice Sale

By Jordan Uditsky • January 14, 2026
Selling a dental practice is a lengthy and involved process that involves due diligence, negotiation, drafting, financing, and other elements, culminating in the seller handing over the keys to the business to the buyer. But the parties’ signatures on the final purchase agreement and ancillary documents hardly mean that the now-former owner can ride off into the sunset without a care in the world. That is because the purchaser will want and require the seller to be responsible for any undisclosed or undiscovered problems with the practice they just bought. For this reason, every dental practice purchase agreement will inevitably contain indemnification provisions that address what happens if problems emerge after closing. These clauses determine who bears the risk for post-closing discoveries and how much exposure each party faces. While the purchaser wants the assurances and protections that come from the contract’s indemnification provisions, the seller doesn’t want to make an open-ended, potentially limitless promise that could eviscerate the financial upsides of the transaction and leave them forever on the hook for millions of dollars in possible liability. That is why deal savvy dental practice attorneys usually require that the purchase and sale agreement’s indemnification provisions include “caps” and “baskets” that establish the maximum exposure a seller will face as well as the minimum amount that must be at issue before any indemnification obligations are triggered. Given the significance that these maximums and minimums have for both parties, it is critical that buyers and sellers understand how caps and baskets work and the best ways to protect their respective interests in a dental practice sale. It All Starts With the Seller’s Representations and Warranties In any dental practice sale, the seller makes certain representations and warranties about the practice and its current condition. These disclosures might include assurances that all patient records are accurate, all equipment is in good working order, the practice has no pending lawsuits or liabilities, all taxes have been paid, and certain personnel matters are in order. If any such representations prove to be false, the indemnification provisions give the buyer the right to seek compensation from the seller for any losses incurred. Liability Caps Establish the Seller’s Maximum Indemnification Exposure A liability cap limits the total amount a seller must pay for breaches of representations and warranties. In dental practice transactions, caps can range from 10% on longer transactions to 100% of the purchase price on practices trending below $1,000,000, with 25% to 50% being most common for middle-market acquisitions. Where the parties ultimately land as to that percentage is a factor of each party’s risk tolerance and the practice's characteristics. A well-established practice with meticulous records, abundant goodwill, and comprehensive due diligence might justify a lower cap. Conversely, a practice with a limited or checkered financial history or significant operational complexity might warrant a higher cap to protect the buyer. Most liability caps exclude certain matters for which the seller remains on the hook for an unlimited amount. Such issues can include overt fraud or fundamental misrepresentations regarding the seller's authority to sell the practice or having clear title to assets. Tax obligations, environmental issues, and employee-related liabilities might also receive special treatment with separate, higher caps than provided for other matters. Baskets Are Like Deductibles While caps address maximum liability, baskets establish minimum thresholds before indemnification obligations arise. Think of a basket like a deductible in an insurance policy. Just as an insured is responsible for paying amounts up to the deductible before the insurer’s obligations kick in, a basket establishes the threshold below which the purchaser must bear any costs or liabilities for post-closing problems, even for matters covered by the contract’s indemnification provisions. Dental practice sales typically include one of two basket types: · A “true deductible” basket provides that the buyer absorbs all losses until reaching the threshold amount, after which they are entitled to recover all sums above it. For example, with a $25,000 true deductible basket, if the buyer’s losses total $30,000, the seller pays only $5,000. · A “tipping” basket , sometimes called a dollar-one basket, provides that once the buyer’s losses exceed the designated threshold, the seller pays from dollar one. Using the same example, the seller would pay the entire $30,000 once that threshold is crossed. Basket amounts in dental practice sales typically range from $5,000 to $25,000, depending on deal size. A $500,000 practice might have a $5,000 basket, while a $3 million practice might see a $25,000 threshold, for example. How Caps and Baskets Impact the Parties After Closing These provisions significantly impact post-closing dynamics. A seller who negotiates a low cap and high basket will minimize their exposure, while a buyer who secures a high cap and low basket gains significant protection and reassurance. Since negotiations over indemnification caps and baskets aren’t conducted in a vacuum, a party that secures an advantageous cap and basket arrangement can expect more challenging negotiations when discussing other aspects of the transaction, such as a higher purchase price or less favorable payment terms. Unanticipated liabilities can wreak havoc for dental practice buyers and sellers alike long after the ink has dried on their agreement. Dentists on either side of a practice sale should work closely with experienced legal counsel to negotiate terms that strike an appropriate balance between protection and practicality. Contact Grogan, Hesse & Uditsky Today If you are a practice owner anticipating a sale or transition, please contact Grogan, Hesse & Uditsky today. We focus a substantial part of our practice on providing exceptional legal services for dentists and dental practices, as well as orthodontists, periodontists, endodontists, pediatric dentists, and oral surgeons. We bring unique insights and deep commitment to protecting the interests of dental professionals and their practices and welcome the opportunity to work with you. Jordan Uditsky, an accomplished businessman and seasoned attorney, combines his experience as a legal counselor and successful entrepreneur to advise dentists and other business owners in the Chicago area. Jordan grew up in a dental family, with his father, grandfather, and sister each owning their own dental practices, and this blend of legal, business, and personal experience provides Jordan with unique insight into his clients’ needs, concerns, and goals.

Handle With Care: Protecting Patient Records Upon Sale of a Dental Practice

By Jordan Uditsky • December 17, 2025
The care that dentists need to provide their patients doesn’t end when they get up from the chair. Dental offices, and the computers, networks, servers, and files maintained within (and outside of) their walls, contain patient files and information that must be kept protected from data breaches and unauthorized disclosure. Failure to handle these records properly can not only breach patient trust, but it can also create regulatory and licensing headaches for dentists and practice owners. That’s why ensuring that patient records are transferred securely and appropriately is of the utmost importance when a dental practice changes hands from one owner to the next. When selling a dental practice, one of the most critical yet often overlooked aspects of the transaction involves the proper handling of patient records. As an attorney who has advised numerous healthcare providers through practice transitions, I can tell you that mishandling patient records can expose both the selling and buying dentists to significant legal liability, regulatory penalties, and damage to professional reputation. Understanding your obligations under federal and state law is essential to protecting yourself and your patients during this transition. HIPAA Considerations Are the Highest Priority Patient dental records are governed by both federal regulations, primarily the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), and state-specific laws that vary considerably across jurisdictions. Under HIPAA, patient records are protected health information (PHI), and any transfer of a patient’s protected health information (PHI) must comply with the law’s strict privacy and security requirements. Additionally, most states have dental practice acts and regulations that impose specific recordkeeping and transfer obligations on licensed dentists. The downsides of failing to thoroughly and carefully follow these requirements arguably represent the biggest potential legal threat to buyers and sellers alike in a practice sale. The selling dentist remains the legal custodian of patient records until the practice sale is complete and proper transfer protocols have been followed. This means that the practice owner cannot simply hand over file cabinets or hard drives to the buyer without taking appropriate legal steps. The seller’s fiduciary duty to their patients continues through the transition period and beyond. Notifying Patients Obviously, patients want and deserve to know that their dentist’s office is changing hands. While HIPAA does not explicitly require advance notice of a practice sale, it does require that patients be informed about who has access to their records. More importantly, many state laws explicitly require written notification to patients when a practice changes hands. The seller should inform patients of the new practice owner's identity, the date of the transition, their options regarding their records, and how they can obtain copies of their records if they choose to seek care elsewhere. Typically, this notification should be sent 30 to 60 days prior to the sale closing, allowing patients sufficient time to make informed decisions about their care. The Actual Transfer Itself The purchase agreement should clearly specify how the records will be transferred, who will bear the costs of transfer, and in what format the records will be transferred. For electronic health records (EHRs), the seller may need to coordinate with their EHR vendor to ensure the proper migration of data to the buyer's system or to maintain access if the buyer intends to use the same platform. For practices that still maintain paper records, the physical transfer must be handled securely to prevent unauthorized access or data breaches. Consider using a secure courier service and keeping a detailed inventory of all records transferred. Record Retention Obligations Generally, upon closing, the buyer assumes the responsibility for maintaining patient records going forward and must retain them for the period required by state law, which typically ranges from five to ten years from the last date of treatment. However, the seller may retain copies of records for their own protection, particularly if there's potential for future liability claims related to treatment provided before the sale. For patients who choose not to continue with the new owner and who do not request their records be sent to another provider, the buyer typically assumes responsibility for storing these inactive records for the required retention period. The purchase agreement should clearly allocate these ongoing obligations and any associated costs. Selling a dental practice is often the culmination of decades of hard work and the start of a new chapter in which the now-former practice owner can reap the benefits of those efforts. However, missteps in the handling of patient records could compromise those plans and leave the seller vulnerable to potential liability. By working closely with experienced counsel throughout the sales process, practice owners can wrap up their careers with clarity, confidence, and conclusiveness. If you are a practice owner anticipating a sale or transition, please contact Grogan, Hesse & Uditsky today. Contact Grogan, Hesse & Uditsky Today If you are a practice owner anticipating a sale or transition, please contact Grogan, Hesse & Uditsky today. We focus a substantial part of our practice on providing exceptional legal services for dentists and dental practices, as well as orthodontists, periodontists, endodontists, pediatric dentists, and oral surgeons. We bring unique insights and deep commitment to protecting the interests of dental professionals and their practices and welcome the opportunity to work with you. Jordan Uditsky, an accomplished businessman and seasoned attorney, combines his experience as a legal counselor and successful entrepreneur to advise dentists and other business owners in the Chicago area. Jordan grew up in a dental family, with his father, grandfather, and sister each owning their own dental practices, and this blend of legal, business, and personal experience provides Jordan with unique insight into his clients’ needs, concerns, and goals.

Insurer’s Proposed Acquisition of Dental Practices Raises Serious Conflict of Interest and Patient Care Concerns

By Jordan Uditsky • November 19, 2025
Whatever shortcomings and deficiencies there may be in the dynamic between dental practices and insurance companies, their distinct roles in patient care are not among them. While dentists certainly want to maximize reimbursements for the services they provide, they are not beholden to insurers and remain in a position to advocate for their patients and challenge an insurer’s cost-related decisions without fear of retribution. But a recent unprecedented move by Delta Dental in Wisconsin threatens to upend this relationship model and has raised serious concerns among industry groups, patient advocates, and regulators about conflicts of interest, competition, and provider independence. Over the summer, Delta Dental announced that it had acquired Cherry Tree Dental, which owns and operates 31 clinics, 25 of which are in Wisconsin. The American Dental Association (ADA) is among several organizations that have vocally opposed the transaction. As the ADA wrote shortly after the deal was announced: When an insurance company becomes both health care provider and insurance payer, questions arise regarding potential conflict of interest. From a business standpoint, dental insurance companies seek to minimize cost and maximize profit. As a result, patients may find their treatment options limited to what is most cost-effective for the insurer, not necessarily what is most effective for their oral health. The ADA believes that the health interests of patients are best protected when dental practices and other private facilities for the delivery of dental care are owned and controlled by a dentist licensed in the jurisdiction where the practice is located. In November, the ADA filed a letter with the Wisconsin Office of the Commissioner of Insurance expanding on its concerns and opposition, including worries about provider independence in making care decisions: Direct ownership by Delta Dental could compromise dentists’ ability to advocate for patients. In traditional arrangements, dentists can appeal plan decisions regarding patient care or choose to leave a network if plan policies are overly restrictive. However, the ADA warned that when dentists are employed by the payer, challenging cost-related decisions could label them as “problem employees,” potentially discouraging proper patient care. The potentially anti-competitive effects of such arrangements were also raised by the ADA, which noted that “Delta Dental’s acquisition could influence agreements, business practices, and fee schedules between Cherry Tree and other payers, potentially creating unfair competition.” In addition to the ADA, the acquisition has drawn concerns from the Wisconsin Dental Association, the American Economic Liberties Project, and the Alliance of Independent Dentists. The fallout of this acquisition, if consummated, could ripple through other markets, potentially leading to a seismic shift in the provider-insurer landscape. We will continue to monitor developments and provide updates as warranted. We Focus on You So You Can Focus on Your Patients At Grogan Hesse & Uditsky, P.C., we focus a substantial part of our practice on providing exceptional legal services for dentists and dental practices, as well as orthodontists, periodontists, endodontists, pediatric dentists, and oral surgeons. We bring unique insights and deep commitment to protecting the interests of dental professionals and their practices and welcome the opportunity to work with you. Please call us at (630) 833-5533 or contact us online to arrange for your free initial consultation. Jordan Uditsky, an accomplished businessman and seasoned attorney, combines his experience as a legal counselor and successful entrepreneur to advise dentists and other business owners in the Chicago area. Jordan grew up in a dental family, with his father, grandfather, and sister each owning their own dental practices. This blend of legal, business, and personal experience provides Jordan with unique insight into his clients’ needs, concerns, and goals. 
Show More

What Practice Owners Need to Understand About Post-Closing Liability “Caps” and “Baskets” in a Dental Practice Sale

By Jordan Uditsky • January 14, 2026
Selling a dental practice is a lengthy and involved process that involves due diligence, negotiation, drafting, financing, and other elements, culminating in the seller handing over the keys to the business to the buyer. But the parties’ signatures on the final purchase agreement and ancillary documents hardly mean that the now-former owner can ride off into the sunset without a care in the world. That is because the purchaser will want and require the seller to be responsible for any undisclosed or undiscovered problems with the practice they just bought. For this reason, every dental practice purchase agreement will inevitably contain indemnification provisions that address what happens if problems emerge after closing. These clauses determine who bears the risk for post-closing discoveries and how much exposure each party faces. While the purchaser wants the assurances and protections that come from the contract’s indemnification provisions, the seller doesn’t want to make an open-ended, potentially limitless promise that could eviscerate the financial upsides of the transaction and leave them forever on the hook for millions of dollars in possible liability. That is why deal savvy dental practice attorneys usually require that the purchase and sale agreement’s indemnification provisions include “caps” and “baskets” that establish the maximum exposure a seller will face as well as the minimum amount that must be at issue before any indemnification obligations are triggered. Given the significance that these maximums and minimums have for both parties, it is critical that buyers and sellers understand how caps and baskets work and the best ways to protect their respective interests in a dental practice sale. It All Starts With the Seller’s Representations and Warranties In any dental practice sale, the seller makes certain representations and warranties about the practice and its current condition. These disclosures might include assurances that all patient records are accurate, all equipment is in good working order, the practice has no pending lawsuits or liabilities, all taxes have been paid, and certain personnel matters are in order. If any such representations prove to be false, the indemnification provisions give the buyer the right to seek compensation from the seller for any losses incurred. Liability Caps Establish the Seller’s Maximum Indemnification Exposure A liability cap limits the total amount a seller must pay for breaches of representations and warranties. In dental practice transactions, caps can range from 10% on longer transactions to 100% of the purchase price on practices trending below $1,000,000, with 25% to 50% being most common for middle-market acquisitions. Where the parties ultimately land as to that percentage is a factor of each party’s risk tolerance and the practice's characteristics. A well-established practice with meticulous records, abundant goodwill, and comprehensive due diligence might justify a lower cap. Conversely, a practice with a limited or checkered financial history or significant operational complexity might warrant a higher cap to protect the buyer. Most liability caps exclude certain matters for which the seller remains on the hook for an unlimited amount. Such issues can include overt fraud or fundamental misrepresentations regarding the seller's authority to sell the practice or having clear title to assets. Tax obligations, environmental issues, and employee-related liabilities might also receive special treatment with separate, higher caps than provided for other matters. Baskets Are Like Deductibles While caps address maximum liability, baskets establish minimum thresholds before indemnification obligations arise. Think of a basket like a deductible in an insurance policy. Just as an insured is responsible for paying amounts up to the deductible before the insurer’s obligations kick in, a basket establishes the threshold below which the purchaser must bear any costs or liabilities for post-closing problems, even for matters covered by the contract’s indemnification provisions. Dental practice sales typically include one of two basket types: · A “true deductible” basket provides that the buyer absorbs all losses until reaching the threshold amount, after which they are entitled to recover all sums above it. For example, with a $25,000 true deductible basket, if the buyer’s losses total $30,000, the seller pays only $5,000. · A “tipping” basket , sometimes called a dollar-one basket, provides that once the buyer’s losses exceed the designated threshold, the seller pays from dollar one. Using the same example, the seller would pay the entire $30,000 once that threshold is crossed. Basket amounts in dental practice sales typically range from $5,000 to $25,000, depending on deal size. A $500,000 practice might have a $5,000 basket, while a $3 million practice might see a $25,000 threshold, for example. How Caps and Baskets Impact the Parties After Closing These provisions significantly impact post-closing dynamics. A seller who negotiates a low cap and high basket will minimize their exposure, while a buyer who secures a high cap and low basket gains significant protection and reassurance. Since negotiations over indemnification caps and baskets aren’t conducted in a vacuum, a party that secures an advantageous cap and basket arrangement can expect more challenging negotiations when discussing other aspects of the transaction, such as a higher purchase price or less favorable payment terms. Unanticipated liabilities can wreak havoc for dental practice buyers and sellers alike long after the ink has dried on their agreement. Dentists on either side of a practice sale should work closely with experienced legal counsel to negotiate terms that strike an appropriate balance between protection and practicality. Contact Grogan, Hesse & Uditsky Today If you are a practice owner anticipating a sale or transition, please contact Grogan, Hesse & Uditsky today. We focus a substantial part of our practice on providing exceptional legal services for dentists and dental practices, as well as orthodontists, periodontists, endodontists, pediatric dentists, and oral surgeons. We bring unique insights and deep commitment to protecting the interests of dental professionals and their practices and welcome the opportunity to work with you. Jordan Uditsky, an accomplished businessman and seasoned attorney, combines his experience as a legal counselor and successful entrepreneur to advise dentists and other business owners in the Chicago area. Jordan grew up in a dental family, with his father, grandfather, and sister each owning their own dental practices, and this blend of legal, business, and personal experience provides Jordan with unique insight into his clients’ needs, concerns, and goals.

Handle With Care: Protecting Patient Records Upon Sale of a Dental Practice

By Jordan Uditsky • December 17, 2025
The care that dentists need to provide their patients doesn’t end when they get up from the chair. Dental offices, and the computers, networks, servers, and files maintained within (and outside of) their walls, contain patient files and information that must be kept protected from data breaches and unauthorized disclosure. Failure to handle these records properly can not only breach patient trust, but it can also create regulatory and licensing headaches for dentists and practice owners. That’s why ensuring that patient records are transferred securely and appropriately is of the utmost importance when a dental practice changes hands from one owner to the next. When selling a dental practice, one of the most critical yet often overlooked aspects of the transaction involves the proper handling of patient records. As an attorney who has advised numerous healthcare providers through practice transitions, I can tell you that mishandling patient records can expose both the selling and buying dentists to significant legal liability, regulatory penalties, and damage to professional reputation. Understanding your obligations under federal and state law is essential to protecting yourself and your patients during this transition. HIPAA Considerations Are the Highest Priority Patient dental records are governed by both federal regulations, primarily the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), and state-specific laws that vary considerably across jurisdictions. Under HIPAA, patient records are protected health information (PHI), and any transfer of a patient’s protected health information (PHI) must comply with the law’s strict privacy and security requirements. Additionally, most states have dental practice acts and regulations that impose specific recordkeeping and transfer obligations on licensed dentists. The downsides of failing to thoroughly and carefully follow these requirements arguably represent the biggest potential legal threat to buyers and sellers alike in a practice sale. The selling dentist remains the legal custodian of patient records until the practice sale is complete and proper transfer protocols have been followed. This means that the practice owner cannot simply hand over file cabinets or hard drives to the buyer without taking appropriate legal steps. The seller’s fiduciary duty to their patients continues through the transition period and beyond. Notifying Patients Obviously, patients want and deserve to know that their dentist’s office is changing hands. While HIPAA does not explicitly require advance notice of a practice sale, it does require that patients be informed about who has access to their records. More importantly, many state laws explicitly require written notification to patients when a practice changes hands. The seller should inform patients of the new practice owner's identity, the date of the transition, their options regarding their records, and how they can obtain copies of their records if they choose to seek care elsewhere. Typically, this notification should be sent 30 to 60 days prior to the sale closing, allowing patients sufficient time to make informed decisions about their care. The Actual Transfer Itself The purchase agreement should clearly specify how the records will be transferred, who will bear the costs of transfer, and in what format the records will be transferred. For electronic health records (EHRs), the seller may need to coordinate with their EHR vendor to ensure the proper migration of data to the buyer's system or to maintain access if the buyer intends to use the same platform. For practices that still maintain paper records, the physical transfer must be handled securely to prevent unauthorized access or data breaches. Consider using a secure courier service and keeping a detailed inventory of all records transferred. Record Retention Obligations Generally, upon closing, the buyer assumes the responsibility for maintaining patient records going forward and must retain them for the period required by state law, which typically ranges from five to ten years from the last date of treatment. However, the seller may retain copies of records for their own protection, particularly if there's potential for future liability claims related to treatment provided before the sale. For patients who choose not to continue with the new owner and who do not request their records be sent to another provider, the buyer typically assumes responsibility for storing these inactive records for the required retention period. The purchase agreement should clearly allocate these ongoing obligations and any associated costs. Selling a dental practice is often the culmination of decades of hard work and the start of a new chapter in which the now-former practice owner can reap the benefits of those efforts. However, missteps in the handling of patient records could compromise those plans and leave the seller vulnerable to potential liability. By working closely with experienced counsel throughout the sales process, practice owners can wrap up their careers with clarity, confidence, and conclusiveness. If you are a practice owner anticipating a sale or transition, please contact Grogan, Hesse & Uditsky today. Contact Grogan, Hesse & Uditsky Today If you are a practice owner anticipating a sale or transition, please contact Grogan, Hesse & Uditsky today. We focus a substantial part of our practice on providing exceptional legal services for dentists and dental practices, as well as orthodontists, periodontists, endodontists, pediatric dentists, and oral surgeons. We bring unique insights and deep commitment to protecting the interests of dental professionals and their practices and welcome the opportunity to work with you. Jordan Uditsky, an accomplished businessman and seasoned attorney, combines his experience as a legal counselor and successful entrepreneur to advise dentists and other business owners in the Chicago area. Jordan grew up in a dental family, with his father, grandfather, and sister each owning their own dental practices, and this blend of legal, business, and personal experience provides Jordan with unique insight into his clients’ needs, concerns, and goals.

Insurer’s Proposed Acquisition of Dental Practices Raises Serious Conflict of Interest and Patient Care Concerns

By Jordan Uditsky • November 19, 2025
Whatever shortcomings and deficiencies there may be in the dynamic between dental practices and insurance companies, their distinct roles in patient care are not among them. While dentists certainly want to maximize reimbursements for the services they provide, they are not beholden to insurers and remain in a position to advocate for their patients and challenge an insurer’s cost-related decisions without fear of retribution. But a recent unprecedented move by Delta Dental in Wisconsin threatens to upend this relationship model and has raised serious concerns among industry groups, patient advocates, and regulators about conflicts of interest, competition, and provider independence. Over the summer, Delta Dental announced that it had acquired Cherry Tree Dental, which owns and operates 31 clinics, 25 of which are in Wisconsin. The American Dental Association (ADA) is among several organizations that have vocally opposed the transaction. As the ADA wrote shortly after the deal was announced: When an insurance company becomes both health care provider and insurance payer, questions arise regarding potential conflict of interest. From a business standpoint, dental insurance companies seek to minimize cost and maximize profit. As a result, patients may find their treatment options limited to what is most cost-effective for the insurer, not necessarily what is most effective for their oral health. The ADA believes that the health interests of patients are best protected when dental practices and other private facilities for the delivery of dental care are owned and controlled by a dentist licensed in the jurisdiction where the practice is located. In November, the ADA filed a letter with the Wisconsin Office of the Commissioner of Insurance expanding on its concerns and opposition, including worries about provider independence in making care decisions: Direct ownership by Delta Dental could compromise dentists’ ability to advocate for patients. In traditional arrangements, dentists can appeal plan decisions regarding patient care or choose to leave a network if plan policies are overly restrictive. However, the ADA warned that when dentists are employed by the payer, challenging cost-related decisions could label them as “problem employees,” potentially discouraging proper patient care. The potentially anti-competitive effects of such arrangements were also raised by the ADA, which noted that “Delta Dental’s acquisition could influence agreements, business practices, and fee schedules between Cherry Tree and other payers, potentially creating unfair competition.” In addition to the ADA, the acquisition has drawn concerns from the Wisconsin Dental Association, the American Economic Liberties Project, and the Alliance of Independent Dentists. The fallout of this acquisition, if consummated, could ripple through other markets, potentially leading to a seismic shift in the provider-insurer landscape. We will continue to monitor developments and provide updates as warranted. We Focus on You So You Can Focus on Your Patients At Grogan Hesse & Uditsky, P.C., we focus a substantial part of our practice on providing exceptional legal services for dentists and dental practices, as well as orthodontists, periodontists, endodontists, pediatric dentists, and oral surgeons. We bring unique insights and deep commitment to protecting the interests of dental professionals and their practices and welcome the opportunity to work with you. Please call us at (630) 833-5533 or contact us online to arrange for your free initial consultation. Jordan Uditsky, an accomplished businessman and seasoned attorney, combines his experience as a legal counselor and successful entrepreneur to advise dentists and other business owners in the Chicago area. Jordan grew up in a dental family, with his father, grandfather, and sister each owning their own dental practices. This blend of legal, business, and personal experience provides Jordan with unique insight into his clients’ needs, concerns, and goals. 
Show More