Wisconsin Department of Financial Institutions Issues Advisory on Crowdfunding

July 17, 2012

By: Gregory J. Lynch

In April 2012, President Obama signed the JOBS Act into law. One of the more interesting provisions for emerging companies was the crowdfunding exemption from federal and state securities regulations.  Under the JOBS Act, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) was required to issue regulations in December 2012 (whether the SEC meets this deadline is in doubt).

The Wisconsin Department of Financial Institutions (DFI) recently issued a Small Business Advisory reminding companies that the crowdfunding provisions under the JOBS Act are not yet applicable and will likely not be applicable until 2013.  Further, the DFI release has some very sound practical advice on crowdfunding, such as:

  • risks that crowdfunding may hinder future investment;
  • the merits of looking at other exemptions;
  • the emphasis on disclosure; and
  • choosing a strong team, including a reputable funding portal.

We will continue to comment on updates on the crowdfunding exemption as new information becomes available later this year.


JOBS Act Update

April 11, 2012

By: Greg J. Lynch and Jeffrey M. Barrett

On March 14, we summarized a package of bills called the Jumpstart Our Business Startups, or JOBS Act passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on March 8, aimed at making it easier for small businesses to go public, attract investors, and hire workers, by reducing U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) registration requirements and other restrictions. On March 22, the Senate approved the JOBS Act after adding an amendment that provides additional safeguards on “crowdfunding” to prevent credit scams. On March 27, the House passed the JOBS Act as amended by the Senate. It is anticipated that President Obama will quickly sign the bill into law.

What follows is a brief summary of the key provisions of the JOBS Act, as amended by the Senate.

Increase of 500 Investor Threshold to be a Reporting Company
The JOBS Act increases the offering threshold for companies exempted from SEC registration from $5 million, the threshold set in the early 1990s, to $50 million. The measure also raises the threshold for mandatory registration under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, from 500 shareholders to either (i) 2,000 shareholders or (ii) 500 shareholders who are not accredited investors for all companies  (and 2,000 shareholders for all banks and bank holding companies) and excludes securities held by shareholders who received such securities under employee compensation plans from the calculation. Raising the offering and shareholder thresholds is intended to help small companies gain access to capital markets without the costs and delays associated with the full-scale securities registration process.

Crowdfunding
Also, included in the legislation is a new registration exemption from the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, for securities issued through internet platforms also known as “crowdfunding.” The aggregate amount sold to all investors in any 12-month period in reliance on this exemption cannot exceed $1 million. Investors with annual income or net worth of more than $100,000 can invest up to 10% of their annual income or net worth, not to exceed an aggregate of $100,000. Thresholds are scaled lower for investors with annual income or net worth of less than $100,000. The transaction must be conducted through an intermediary that is registered with the SEC as a “funding portal” or broker and registered with a self-regulatory authority. In addition, intermediaries must provide disclosures to investors regarding the level of risk of the offering and comply with other SEC regulations. Issuers must file with the SEC and provide to investors and intermediaries basic information about the issuer, including financial statements, its officers, directors, 20% shareholders and the risks related to the offering. Issuers requesting less than $100,000 are required to have the CEO of the issuer certify the accuracy of the issuer’s financials. Issuers seeking to rise between $100,000 and $500,000 are required to have a CPA certify the accuracy of the issuer’s financials. Issuers seeking to rise over $500,000 are required to make their audited financials public. The legislation implements a three-week listing-to-closure period, which allows some time for the collective “wisdom of the crowd” to identify possible fraudulent activity through feedback loops. By exempting such offerings from registration with the SEC and preempting state registration laws, the legislation seeks to enable entrepreneurs to more easily access capital from potential investors across the United States to grow their business and create jobs.

Removal of Ban on Small Company Advertisements to Solicit Capital
The legislation would remove the prohibition against general solicitation or advertising on sales of non-publicly traded securities, provided that all purchasers of the securities are accredited investors. The Securities Act of 1933, as amended, currently requires that any offer to sell securities either be registered with the SEC or meet an exemption. Rule 506 of Regulation D is an exemption that allows companies to raise capital as long as they do not market their securities through general solicitations or advertising. The legislation would allow small companies offering securities under Regulation D to utilize advertisements or solicitation to reach investors and obtain capital, provided that all purchasers of the securities are accredited investors. The goal is to allow companies greater access to accredited investors and to new sources of capital to grow and create jobs, without putting less sophisticated investors at risk.

Emerging Growth Companies
The legislation establishes a new category of security issuers, identified as “Emerging Growth Companies” (EGCs), which will be exempt from certain regulatory requirements until the earliest of three conditions: (1) five years from the date of the initial public offering; (2) the date an EGC has $1 billion in annual gross revenue; or (3) the date an EGC becomes what is defined by the SEC as a “large accelerated filer,” which is a company with a  worldwide market value of outstanding voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates, also known as “public float,” of $700 million or more. The regulatory relief provided by the legislation is designed to be temporary and transitional, encouraging small companies to go public but ensuring they transition to full conformity with regulations over time or as they grow large enough to have the resources to sustain the type of compliance infrastructure associated with more mature enterprises.


JOBS Act

March 12, 2012

By: Gregory J. Lynch and Jeffrey M. Barrett

On Thursday, March 8, 2012, the U.S. House of Representatives easily passed a package of bills called the Jumpstart Our Business Startups, or JOBS Act aimed at making it easier for small businesses to go public, attract investors, and hire workers by reducing U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) registration requirements and other restrictions. If it becomes law, the JOBS Act has the potential to significantly reduce the securities compliance costs of raising capital for emerging companies.

The Senate is expected to soon introduce its own version of the legislation and President Obama has indicated his support of the measure.

Increase of 500 Investor Threshold to be a Reporting Company
The JOBS Act increases the offering threshold for companies exempted from SEC registration from $5 million – the threshold set in the early 1990s – to $50 million. The measure also raises the threshold for mandatory registration under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, from 500 shareholders to 2,000 shareholders, provided that fewer than 500 such holders are non-accredited investors, and excludes securities held by shareholders who received such securities under employee compensation plans from the calculation. Raising the offering and shareholder thresholds is intended to help small companies gain access to capital markets without the costs and delays associated with the full-scale securities registration process.

Crowdfunding
Also included in the legislation is a new registration exemption from the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, for securities issued through internet platforms also known as “crowdfunding.” To use this new exemption, the issuer’s offering cannot exceed $1 million, unless the issuer provides investors with audited financial statements, in which case the offering amount may not exceed $2 million. An individual’s investment must be equal to or less than the lesser of $10,000 or 10 percent of the investor’s annual income. By exempting such offerings from registration with the SEC and preempting state registration laws, the legislation seeks to enable entrepreneurs to more easily access capital from potential investors across the United States to grow their business and create jobs.

Removal of Ban on Small Company Advertisements to Solicit Capital
Lastly, the legislation would remove the prohibition against general solicitation or advertising on sales of non-publicly traded securities, provided that all purchasers of the securities are accredited investors. The Securities Act of 1933, as amended, currently requires that any offer to sell securities either be registered with the SEC or meet an exemption. Rule 506 of Regulation D is an exemption that allows companies to raise capital as long as they do not market their securities through general solicitations or advertising. The legislation would allow small companies offering securities under Regulation D to utilize advertisements or solicitation to reach investors and obtain capital, provided that all purchasers of the securities are accredited investors. The goal is to allow companies greater access to accredited investors and to new sources of capital to grow and create jobs, without putting less sophisticated investors at risk.

Emerging Growth Companies
The legislation establishes a new category of security issuers, identified as “Emerging Growth Companies” (EGCs), which will be exempt from certain regulatory requirements until the earliest of three conditions: (1) five years from the date of the initial public offering; (2) the date an EGC has $1 billion in annual gross revenue; or (3) the date an EGC becomes what is defined by the SEC as a “large accelerated filer,” which is a company with a  worldwide market value of outstanding voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates (also known as “public float”) of $700 million or more. The regulatory relief provided by the legislation is designed to be temporary and transitional, encouraging small companies to go public but ensuring they transition to full conformity with regulations over time or as they grow large enough to have the resources to sustain the type of compliance infrastructure associated with more mature enterprises.


Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater

December 2, 2011

By: Gregory J. Lynch

Ronald Bailey has criticized the federal government’s loan guarantee provided to Solyndra (“With a Government-Funded ‘Success’ Like This What Does a Government-Funded Failure Look Like” Reason Magazine, Sept. 1, 2011). While it may be easy to attack a decision that ultimately turns out to be wrong, it is important also to highlight the successful government investments, especially in basic research, that have played a critical role in the American innovation engine that has been for some time now the envy of much of the rest of the world.

View the complete blog at IBMadison.com’s Open Mic page.


SEC PROPOSES DEFINITION OF VENTURE CAPITAL FUND UNDER DODD-FRANK

November 22, 2010


The Proposed Rules

One of the provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”) was to require many more financial advisors to register under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the “Advisers Act”). The Dodd-Frank Act exempted advisers that only manage venture capital funds from registration under the Advisers Act, and the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) was directed to define the term “venture capital fund.” On November 19, 2010 the SEC proposed a definition of “venture capital fund”. Under the proposed definition, a venture capital fund is a private fund that:

  • Public RepresentationRepresents itself to investors and potential investors that it is a venture capital fund.
  • Invests in Qualifying Portfolio Companies. Only invests in equity securities (including convertible notes, warrants and other securities that are convertible into equity securities) of “qualifying portfolio companies” (see below) (and at least eighty percent (80%) of the equity securities of each qualifying portfolio company owned by the fund was acquired directly or indirectly from the qualifying portfolio company) or cash, cash equivalents or U.S. Treasuries with a remaining maturity of sixty (60) days or less.
  • Significant Management Guidance. With respect to each qualifying portfolio company, either has an arrangement whereby the fund or the investment adviser offers to provide, and if so accepted, does so provide, significant guidance and counsel concerning the management, operations or business objectives and policies of the qualifying portfolio company. 
  • No leverage. Does not borrow, issue debt obligations, provide guarantees or otherwise incur leverage in excess of fifteen percent (15%) of the fund’s aggregate capital contributions and uncalled committed capital, and any such borrowing, indebtedness, guarantee or leverage is for a non-renewable term of no longer than 120 days.   
  • No redemption rights. Does not offer redemption rights to its investors.

Under the proposed rules, “qualifying portfolio company” means any company that:

  • Private company. At the time of any investment by the fund, is not publicly traded and does not control, is not controlled by or under common control with a publicly traded company.
  • No borrowing. Does not borrow or issue debt obligations in connection with the fund’s investment in such company.
  • No purchase from existing security holders. Does not redeem, exchange or repurchase any securities of the company, or distribute to pre-existing security holders cash or other assets in connection with the fund’s investment in such company.

 Under a proposed grandfathering provision, existing funds that make venture capital investments would generally be deemed to meet the proposed definition, as long as they have represented themselves as venture capital funds.

The Concerns

If adopted, the proposed rules raise create significant ambiguity or significant concerns regarding existing practices of venture capital firms. 

  1. What constitutes “significant guidance and counsel concerning the management, operations or business objectives and policies of the qualifying portfolio company”? Is Board representation sufficient? What about board observers? Smaller funds that are more passive nature?
  2. Public companies sometimes want to spin out very early stage technology that is years from commercialization to affiliated companies and then rely on venture capital funds to fund their growth. The proposed rules would prohibit that practice. 
  3. Many public companies have captive venture capital investment vehicles that invest in emerging companies. The proposed rules would prohibit co-investment by funds if the captive venture capital investment vehicle controls the company. 
  4. Many companies rely on governmental or other low interest loans to fund their growth. The loans often require some matching funds as an independent third-party validation of the company’s prospects. The proposed rules appear to prohibit companies from raising matching debt capital as part of a venture capital investment. 
  5. Occasionally, founders in later stage venture backed companies opt to “take some money off the table” by selling a portion of their equity in connection with later stage rounds. The proposed rules prohibit this practice. Potentially more problematic, the proposed rules could also be interpreted to prohibit repurchases of equity securities from former founders or employees who are no longer active in the company.  

While the SEC appears to have made a good faith effort in defining what constitutes an exempt venture capital fund, some of the proposed rules would negatively affect certain common practices in a manner that is hard to explain if the goal is to further investor protection.


Top Legal Mistakes Entrepreneurs Make: Choice of Entity

June 25, 2010

By: Gregory J. Lynch 

One of the first legal issues entrepreneurs face is what type of entity they should form. There are three common types of entities: C-corporation, S-corporation and limited liability company (or LLC). There is a lot of confusion on which entity is best. Some experienced West Coast start-up lawyers provide a five second answer that a corporation is recommended. Some law firms in the Upper Midwest consistently recommend limited liability companies, while our former colleague Matt Storms identifies key deficiencies in LLC’s. This article will briefly describe the pros and cons of C-corporations, S-corporations and limited liability companies. In general, while limited liability companies are a good option for companies who are not going to seek material outside angel or venture capital financing, high-growth companies who will rely on angel or venture capital financing should not form limited liability companies.

All three types of entities provide the basic liability protection against personal liability for obligations of the business. C-corporations, S-corporations and limited liability companies differ significantly in the areas of taxation, financing, ownership and structuring flexibility and financing. These key differences are summarized in the following chart and described in more detail below.

  C Corporation  S Corporation LLC
 
Pass-Through Tax Treatment  No Yes Yes
Flexibility of Ownership and Capital Structure  High Low High
Attractive to Founders  Maybe Maybe Maybe
Attractive to Investors  Yes No No
Complexity  Moderate Moderate Moderate to High
Costs  Small to Moderate Small to Moderate Small to High
Ideal Profile VC or angel backed company Early stage company that intends to convert to C Corporation within 24 months but founders want initial tax losses Companies that will not seek material outside investment

 

Taxation

  •  C-Corporations. A C-corporation is a separate taxable entity. As such, its earnings or losses are taxed at both the entity level and, to the extent any distributions are made, at the stockholder level. The impact of this double taxation is mitigated for companies that anticipate generating losses for the foreseeable future.
  • S-Corporations. Unlike a C-corporation, most profits and losses of an S-corporation flow through to the individual income tax returns of its stockholders. However, several rules can limit the ability of stockholders to utilize any S-corporation losses that are passed through to them. One rule states that stockholders generally can not deduct S-corporation losses in excess of the amount invested in the stock and any funds loaned to the S-corporation. A second rule further limits the ability of S-corporation stockholders who are not actively involved in the business to offset tax losses against other “nonpassive” income (e.g., dividends, interest, royalties, etc.). In contrast, S-corporation stockholders who are actively involved in the business (e.g. founders) can use any losses passed through from the S-corporation to offset other income from dividends, interest, royalties, etc. Ownership rules (described below) effectively prohibit venture capital firms from investing directly in S-corporations. When combined with the increased administrative costs of preparing individual Schedule K-1s for every stockholder, S-corporations are very unappealing for operating companies who rely on selling stock to raise capital for growth.
  • Limited Liability Companies. The tax treatment for LLCs is somewhat similar to S-corporations except that (i) LLCs have more flexibility in allocating income or losses to specific investors and (ii) as of now, employee-owners of LLCs are required to pay their own payroll taxes (i.e. income, social security and Medicare) rather than rely on the LLC to remit such taxes on their behalf. The net result is a higher marginal tax liability for such employee-owners. In addition, many venture capital firms are unwilling to invest directly in LLCs because of the risk that certain tax-exempt owners of the venture capital firm would become liable for a special income tax (referred to as “unrelated business taxable income”) on any pass-through of income from the LLC. Finally, the Schedule K-1 administrative burden described above also applies to LLCs.

Ownership / Structuring Flexibility

  • C-Corporations. A C-corporation has tremendous flexibility in who can be a stockholder and in structuring the rights of various stockholders, including with respect to valuation, preferences and protections.
  • S-Corporations. The biggest disadvantages of S-corporations are that they are very inflexible with respect to who can be stockholders and how stockholders can structure their rights. Specifically, S-corporations are limited to no more than 100 stockholders and all of them must be (i) individuals who are U.S. citizens or residents, (ii) estates, (iii) certain eligible trusts or (iv) certain tax-exempt entities.
  • Limited Liability Companies. Like C-corporations, LLCs have tremendous flexibility in who can be a member and in structuring the rights of various owners, including with respect to valuation, preferences and protections.

Financing

  • C-Corporations. A C-corporation is the best entity for seeking outside capital. Almost all venture capital firms and many angel groups will only invest in C-corporations due to the tax and administrative issues described above. We recently spoke with one prominent angel investor who said he refuses to invest in any more LLCs or S-corporations because he had 27 Schedule K-1s and was spending an inordinate amount of money on his personal tax returns.
  • S-Corporations. S-corporations are generally not a good choice for financing because they have the challenges of pass-through taxation described above. In addition, S-corporations have limited flexibility for capital structure and ownership. However, S-corporations can be an ideal bridge entity for companies that want initial pass-through tax treatment before converting to a C-corporation in connection with an outside financing.
  • Limited Liability Companies. Limited liability companies are generally not a good choice for financing because they have the challenges of pass-through taxation described above. Although LLCs do not suffer from the same inflexibility in capital structure and ownership that S-corporations do, LLCs are much harder and more expensive to convert to C-corporations. While S-corporations can be converted to C-corporations at no cost, converting an LLC to a C-corporation can sometimes cost thousands or tens of thousands of dollars in administrative costs (and sometimes trigger income tax upon the conversion). In almost all cases, this unnecessary expense could have been avoided if the founders had not selected an LLC as the choice of entity at the formation stage.

Conclusion

So which choice of entity is best?  There is no single “right” answer for every business. However, the following start-up company profiles are best fits for the three major entities.

  • C-Corporations. A start-up company that is or will have its growth funded by venture capital or angel investors.
  • S-Corporations. A start-up company that intends to convert to a C-corporation in connection with an outside financing but whose founders want the initial benefits of pass-through tax treatment.
  • Limited Liability Companies. A real estate company or a start-up company that is not relying on traditional venture capital or angel investors to fund their growth.

Disclaimer

This Blog is a publication of Michael Best & Friedrich LLP and is intended to provide clients and friends with information on recent legal developments. This Blog should not be construed as legal advice or an opinion on specific situations. For further information, feel free to contact authors or other members of the firm. We welcome your comments and suggestions regarding this Blog. © 2010 Michael Best & Friedrich LLP. All rights reserved.


Top Five Legal Mistakes Entrepreneurs Make

June 10, 2010

 By: Gregory J. Lynch

Many new entrepreneurs are very knowledgeable about their technology and their markets, but not so much about legal matters. Unfortunately, that means they may receive bad advice and take actions that will come back to haunt them months or years down the road and could potentially be fatal to their company. What follows is a list of five of the top mistakes entrepreneurs make, and how best to avoid them.

1.  Choice of Entity.

For entrepreneurs who hope to receive outside capital, i.e. from an angel or venture capital group, incorporating as a C-corporation will typically be the best way to go. With limited exceptions, almost all venture capital funds and most angel funds will only invest in C-corporations for tax, cost and administrative reasons. Although double taxation is often cited as a reason for not organizing as a C-corporation, most new start-ups are not profitable early on, and in fact are likely to exit before they become significantly profitable, so these concerns are often not  applicable.

To the extent you have already organized as a limited liability company or S-corporation, all is not lost as you can always convert to a C-corporation at a later time. Keep in mind however, that you will likely be padding your attorney’s wallet during the conversion process.

2.  Securities Laws Issues.

Many entrepreneurs, in their quest for capital, will first turn to their family and friends. Many will sell shares of the company’s common stock or other securities without proper disclosure documents. Many more will sell those same securities by undertaking general advertising or solicitation. And still more will issue the company’s securities to individuals who do not meet the definition of an “accredited investor.” Each of these actions can have very severe consequences, which can include refunding investor’s money (plus interest), fines, penalties and possible criminal sanctions (read time in jail). There are an abundance of securities laws out there and they do allow sales to friends and family, but you need to be well counseled to properly navigate them.

And while we are discussing securities laws issues, no, a private placement memorandum (“PPM”) is not the answer to all of your problems. PPMs have their own place in issuing company securities but start-up company capital is typically not one of them.

3.  Employment and Intellectual Property.

Many entrepreneurs begin working on their new idea or business while still employed by another company. Your bills still need to be paid, right? The problem with doing so however, is that unless you are very careful any intellectual property (ideas to be patented, logos to be trademarked, etc.) you create, may very well belong to your current paying-your-bills employer. Common employment-related agreements contain invention assignment clauses, which basically say, anything created by you, while working for us, with assistance from our stuff or on our time, belongs to us, whether or not it is related to our business. These agreements may also extend this obligation for a set period of time (i.e. six months) after you leave your employment with them. This is a very tricky issue and you should start by becoming familiar with what exactly you signed up for in your employment agreement – and then consult entrepreneur friendly (and experienced) counsel.

Entrepreneurs should also consider discussing potentially patentable ideas with legal counsel prior to publicly disclosing their ideas. A conversation with merely one person, who does not have an obligation to maintain secrecy (link to NDA article to be written) can be detrimental, including loss of all foreign patent rights and limited U.S. patent rights.

4.  83(b) Elections.

Founders of start-up companies will generally hold their founders’ stock in the form of restricted stock, subject to vesting (if not initially subject to vesting, investors often require that at least some portion of the founder stock be made subject to vesting as a condition to the investment). Under certain tax laws, the vesting schedule will be treated as a substantial risk of forfeiture, which will prevent the shares of stock from being taxable to you when they are initially received.  No taxes?  What’s the problem, right? Well, assuming your company is as successful as you believe it will be, by the time your shares are taxable (at the time they vest), they could be worth multiples of what they are currently worth. So you have effectively deferred a small amount of taxes now to pay a large amount of taxes later. Not such a great idea is it?

Fortunately, the Internal Revenue Service gives you thirty days, from the date any vesting restrictions are imposed on the stock, to file an 83(b) election. This election will allow (yes, I said allow) you to pay taxes on the stock at the time of its issuance: when it likely has very little value, for tax purposes. When the stock actually vests, you will not need to pay anything. An additional bonus is that you can start your capital gains period on the date the stock is issued, as opposed to the date the stock vests, giving you a jump start on the one-year holding period for capital gains treatment.

5.  Trademark Registration.

While trademark registration is easier in comparison to applying for a patent, it is still by no means simple. Due diligence must be performed to determine if there is any possible conflict with another entity’s trademark rights. Many entrepreneurs will attempt to save legal expenses by applying to register their own trademarks, which can be successful at times. However, it is often the case that complex legal responses are required when responding to communications from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. In addition, incorrectly submitted trademark applications can result in loss of rights and the need to re-file, thereby losing your place in the trademark line of priority. Trademarks are often the most valuable assets of a company ( See Google®, eBay®, etc.) and thereby require careful consideration.

Disclaimer

This Blog is a publication of Michael Best & Friedrich LLP and is intended to provide clients and friends with information on recent legal developments. This Blog should not be construed as legal advice or an opinion on specific situations. For further information, feel free to contact authors or other members of the firm. We welcome your comments and suggestions regarding this Blog. © 2010 Michael Best & Friedrich LLP. All rights reserved.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 40 other followers