Category: Crowdfunding

Lawyers and AI

Lawyers And Artificial Intelligence: An Update

On By crowdfundattnyIn AI, Crowdfunding, PredictionsLeave a comment

I posted about lawyers and artificial intelligence in late 2023, predicting that AI tools would drive down the cost of legal services while making high-quality legal service available to more people. The great thing about predictions like that is that nobody can prove you were wrong until it’s too late. So far, however, it hasn’t happened.

I thought AI would enter the legal world through “intermediated” channels like Westlaw. With their enormous, curated databases of court cases, administrative rulings, and other source materials, as well as libraries of excellent legal forms drafted by top-notch lawyers, I expected companies like Westlaw to race quickly to the top, leaving “brute strength” tools like ChatGPT behind.

Since then, I’ve tried just about every AI tool on the market, including the most recent version of Westlaw’s AI tool, CoCounsel. Beginning each demonstration with high hopes, I am always left with great disappointment. 

Here are some things I’d expect from an AI tool for business lawyers:

  • Review Documents:  The tool should analyze an Asset Purchase Agreement or Operating Agreement and tell me (i) how it differs from “market” terms, and (ii) how it should be changed for the benefit of my client.
  • Summarize Documents:  The tool should summarize a legal document. One type of summary would tell me what’s in the document, at any level of detail I want. Another would prepare a summary I can use in an Offering Circular (e.g., “Summary of Management Agreement”).
  • Search Documents:  I’ve drafted approximately seven million Operating Agreements. If I’m looking for a clause I used two years ago, the tool should be able to find it.
  • Improve Documents:  The tool should review my document and point out ambiguities, inconsistencies, mistaken references, and logical gaps. 
  • Draft Sections of Documents:  If I’m drafting an IP License Agreement and need a section saying the Licensee is responsible for prosecuting infringement claims, the tool should produce one with a simple prompt.
  • Draft Whole Documents:  If I need a Rule 144 opinion, the tool should take me through the steps of preparing one, including the Certification from my client.
  • Legal Research:  The tool should vastly improve the process of legal research.
  • Reserve Flights:  Not necessary. 

In the earliest stages, I don’t expect an AI tool to produce great results. During a recent demonstration, the sales rep said, “You should view this as the work of a second-year lawyer.” Unfortunately, it was more like the work of a high school junior.

The good news is that brute strength tools like ChatGPT have improved dramatically. You still can’t rely on them – recently ChatGPT produced a quote from a court case speaking directly to my issue, but when I checked (always check), the quote was hallucinated – they are better than the intermediated tools, so far. 

When ChatGPT was released, many experts predicted that lawyers were the most vulnerable. Two and a half years later, that hasn’t happened, either. If you’re a lawyer, I guess that’s good news in a different way.

Questions? Let me know.

Title III Crowdfunding

Crowdfunding And The Investment Company Act

On By crowdfundattnyIn Crowdfunding, ICA, Investment Company Act, JOBS ActLeave a comment

I speak with lots of people about Crowdfunding and write this blog to answer questions they ask. I’ve had hundreds of conversations that start with Crowdfunding and end up with the Investment Company Act. I hope this post will help clarify the relationship between the two.

The Investment Company Act of 1940

Many entrepreneurs have never heard of the Investment Company Act, or ICA, so that part of my conversations begins with a short primer.

Think of a mutual fund, a company that exists only to invest in stock of other companies. That’s an investment company.  Unfortunately, the definition of “investment company” in the ICA is so broad it sweeps in many companies that would never think of themselves as mutual funds. Any company holding stock in another company can be treated as an investment company. 

Investment companies are subject to so many rules and expensive regulations, unless you’re a mutual fund you don’t want to be treated as an investment company.

Suppose a real estate sponsor forms ABC LLC to collect 87 investors, and ABC  LLC invests in the entity that owns the real estate, i.e., owns stock of one company. ABC LLC is an investment company and must comply with all the rules and regulations!  Suppose you and three friends form STU LLC to invest in the stock market together. You have an investment company and must comply with all the rules and regulations! Suppose XYZ LLC raises money from 220 people to invest in startups. XYZ LLC is an investment company and must comply with all the rules and regulations!

Unless, that is, ABC LLC, STU LLC, and XYZ LLC qualify for one of the exemptions describe below.

Common Exemptions

A Company with No More Than 100 Owners

A company with no more than 100 owners is exempt from the ICA. ABC LLC and STU LLC fall within this exemption.

A Venture Capital Fund with No More Than 250 Owners

A venture capital fund with no more than 250 owners is exempt from the ICA. A “venture capital fund” means a fund that holds itself out as a venture capital fund and:

  • Raises no more than $10,000,000;
  • Invests no more than 20% of its capital contributions in any single investments;
  • Doesn’t borrow money; and
  • Doesn’t give investors the right to withdraw, redeem or require the repurchase of their ownership interests.

Depending on its terms, XYZ LLC might fall within this exemption.

A Company with Only Wealthy Investors

A company where each investor is a “qualified purchaser” is exempt from the ICA. A qualified purchaser is, in general, an individual with at least $5,000,000 of investments.

ABC LLC, STU LLC, and XYZ LLC could be eligible for this exemption.

NOTE:  American securities laws have always distinguished between people who are wealthy and people who are not. The theory is that wealthy people, who can hire lawyers and accountants and possibly are smarter, don’t need the protection of the government while other people do. We see the theory in practice most commonly with the different treatment of accredited vs. non-accredited investors. With this exemption to the ICA, we see the theory taken one step farther. 

Intersection with Crowdfunding

These are the key points of intersection between Crowdfunding and the ICA:

The ICA Prohibits Many Good Investment Ideas 

I can’t count how many entrepreneurs have proposed a great idea, only to have me say it can’t be done because of the ICA. For example, suppose you believe in startup culture and want to give more Americans the chance to participate. You know that investing in just one startup is very risky, so you propose to raise money from hundreds of people and invest in 20 startups, a million dollars each.

You call me and I tell you that you can’t. Or more exactly, you can, but only if your hundreds of people are wealthy, which defeats the purpose. 

Neither Reg CF nor Regulation A can be Used by Investment Companies

Alright, you say, suppose I’m willing to limit the number of investors to 250, all non-accredited, raise $10 million rather than $20 million, and otherwise meet the requirements of a venture capital fund. Can I do that?

Yes! Or rather, No! 

Under that structure, your entity would fit within the ICA exemption described above. But to raise the $10 million, you have to find an offering exemption. The general rule, set forth in section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933, is that every time you raise money from investors you have to conduct a full-blown IPO. The most common offering types –Rule 506, Reg CF, and so forth – are exemptions from that rule. Which will you use for your new fund?

You can’t use Rule 506(c) because it doesn’t allow non-accredited investors. You can’t use Rule 506(b) because (i) it allows only 35 non-accredited investors, and (ii) it doesn’t allow advertising. And you can’t use Reg CF or Regulation A because they can’t be used by investment companies. With no offering exemptions available, the answer is No, you can’t do it. 

Hold on, you say. I understand that Reg CF and Regulation A can’t be used by an investment company, but didn’t you tell me five minutes ago that my venture fund won’t be treated as an investment company if I follow the rules? Are you experiencing dementia at such an early age, with such youthful features?

Possibly, but that’s not what’s going on here. Unfortunately, neither Reg CF nor Regulation A can be used by a company that would be an investment company if not for the three exemptions I described above. I didn’t say your fund wouldn’t be an investment company, I said it wouldn’t be subject to all the expensive rules and regulations of the ICA.  

It’s like a trick the law plays on you. ABC LLC STU LLC, and XYZ LLC will have “IC” emblazoned on their chests forever. 

The ICA Exemptions and the Offering Exemptions are Apples and Oranges 

People will say “I know I can’t have more than 100 non-accredited investors” or “Am I still subject to the Investment Company Act if I use Rule 506(c)?” 

Those are non-sequiturs. On one side of the fence sits the Investment Company Act of 1940 and its exemptions. On the other side of the fence sits the Securities Act of 1933 and its exemptions. The exemptions for one having nothing to do with the exemptions for the other. They aren’t friends.

Thus:

  • The ICA exemptions apply no matter how you raise the money. If you’re relying on the 100-owner exemption, for example, you can raise the money from 100 qualified purchasers, from 100 accredited investors, from 100 non-accredited investors, or a mix of investors. But you must qualify under one of the offering exemptions separately.
  • Of the offering exemptions commonly used, you can use Rule 506(b) (no advertising, up to 35 non-accredited investors) or Rule 506(c) (no non-accredited investors, unlimited advertising) without thinking about the ICA. But if you want to use Reg CF or Regulation A, you have to think about the ICA a lot.

Every conversation about Crowdfunding should include time for the Investment Company Act. Beware!

Questions? Let me know.

new risk factors for crowdfunding and beyond

Trump II: New Risks Factors for Crowdfunding and Beyond

On By crowdfundattnyIn Crowdfunding, Risk Factor, Tariffs, Trump AdministrationLeave a comment
New risk factors for crowdfunding & beyond

Disclosure is at the heart of the U.S. securities laws, and of all the information that can be disclosed, the most important are the risks associated with the investment. That’s why every disclosure document, from the most humble Private Placement Memorandum to the most extensive S-1, includes a list of risk factors.

Some risks are general: the risk that the business might be affected by another pandemic. Some are technical: the risk that our new technology might not work. Some are legal:  the risk that our product infringes on a patent that belongs to someone else.

Whatever their political persuasion, lawyers who draft disclosure documents should now include risks associated with the new Administration. Different businesses will be subject to different risks, but here is a partial list:

  • Risk of Higher Inflation and Interest Rates:  The new Administration has imposed tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China, and is threatening tariffs on other allies, including the European Union. According to economists, the cost of tariffs will fall on American consumers, raising prices for a large number of goods and thereby fueling inflation. At the same time, the Administration is proposing large tax cuts funded by higher federal budget deficits, which will also contribute to inflation. The Federal Reserve has struggled to bring inflation down to its 2% target, and these policies will likely lead to interest rates h igher than they would have been otherwise.
  • Risk of Labor Shortages:  The new Administration is cracking down on undocumented immigrants, seeking to deport millions by force. Undocumented immigrants make up approximately 40% of the American agricultural labor market, approximately 15% – 25% of the housing labor market, and approximately 20% of the food services labor market, among others. The absence of these workers would cause acute shortages, leading to higher prices and scarcity.
  • Risk of Future Pandemics:  The COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 was devastating for many industries and for the American economy as a whole. The new Administration is populated by “vaccine skeptics,” chief among them Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who has propagated misinformation not only about COVID vaccines but about vaccines of all kinds, claiming without evidence that childhood vaccines cause autism and opposing vaccines for illnesses ranging from measles to polio. As the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Mr. Kennedy has already taken action against vaccine research, just as the Administration is defunding scientific research generally. These actions increase the risk of another pandemic.
  • Risks to Agricultural Sector:  The American agricultural sector depends heavily on exports, including exports to China. With China now retaliating against the Administration’s tariffs, and the possible loss of almost half its workforce, the agricultural sector could face severe impacts.
  • Risks to Housing Sector:  The American housing industry contributes approximately $1.2 trillion annually, or about 4.5% of America’s gross domestic product. Tariffs imposed on Canadian exports, retaliation by Canada and other countries, increases in interest rates caused by Administration policies, and the possible loss of approximately 20% of its workforce could damage the housing sector severely.
  • Risks Associated with Government Closures:  The new Administration has slashed some government spending, including spending mandated by Congress, in ways that could disrupt the economy or specific industries. For example, in the weeks that followed a fatal midair collision near Reagan National Airport, the Administration announced a reduction in funding for the Federal Aeronautics Administration, which controls flight safety. These cuts could lead to more travel delays and possibly more fatalities, which would have negative effects on the economy.
  • Risk of Government Action Concerning DEI Initiatives:  The new Administration has moved aggressively against initiatives favoring “diversity, equity, and inclusion.” A project that relies on federal funding for any such initiatives will be affected adversely.
  • Risk of Climate Change:  Climate change (aka “global warming”) caused by human activity is already imposing costs and risks for the American economy, including unusual and unpredictable storms, droughts, and other weather-related events. The new Administration has moved aggressively against initiatives to address climate change, like alternative energy, removing mention of “climate change” from government websites, and defunding the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, in favor of carbon-based energy. These actions will increase the rate of global warming and the associated risks.
  • Risks of Legal and Economic Uncertainty:  The new Administration has announced that it will not enforce laws it does not like, such as the Tik-Tok ban, while also putting in the hands of the White House decisions that have historically been made by administrative agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Administration has also reversed itself on important issues like tariffs, then reversed the reversals. Economic and legal uncertainty can create a climate where businesses are reluctant to invest, increasing the cost of capital and adding to overall economic risks.
  • Risk of Economic Disruption from Tariffs:  Facing a deepening depression, the administration of Herbert Hoover signed into the law the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, which raised tariffs on imported goods. That statute is widely regarded as having worsened, or even caused, the Great Depression by stifling international trade. The steep tariffs imposed by the new Administration could have a similar effect, or even worse.  World economies are far more connected today than they were in 1930. Everything from iPhones to automobiles are made not just in one country but in many. Canada, Mexico, and China have all announced plans to retaliate against the U.S., and a series of tit-for-tat actions could unravel the free trade networks that have been at the foundation of economic growth for 80 years. Any such disruption increases the risk of recession, if not worse.
  • Risks of Recession:    Consumer sentiment has dropped while expectations for future inflation have risen, even before consumers feel the impact of higher prices caused by tariffs. The yield on the 10-year treasury bill has also fallen on fears of recession. Labor shortages, higher prices, disruptions to supply chains, the possible scarcity of goods, and economic uncertainty could combine to create a recession, which would adversely affect most businesses.

The purpose of the “Risks of Investing” is to alert prospective investors to risks and thereby reduce the chance of a successful investor lawsuit after the fact. Lawyers will have to decide on a project-by-project basis whether these and other policy-related risks should be disclosed. Few, if any, businesses will go unscathed.

Questions? Let me know.

Caution: Don't Use Series LLC As A Crowdfunding Vehicle

FINRA: Don’t Use Series LLC As A Crowdfunding Vehicle

On By crowdfundattnyIn Crowdfunding, FINRA, Series LLC2 Comments

At least one high-volume Crowdfunding portal once used a “series LLC” for each crowdfunding vehicle and used a crowdfunding vehicle for almost every offering. Maybe that portal and others still do.

In a post that has yet to be picked up by the Associated Press, this blog once explained why that was a bad idea from a legal liability point of view. Now FINRA has chimed in.

The Series LLC

Some states, notably Delaware, allow a single limited liability company to be divided into “series,” the way an auditorium could be physically divided into cubicles. If operated correctly, Delaware provides that the creditors of one series can’t get at the assets of another series. So if one series of the LLC operates an asbestos plant and is hit with a giant lawsuit, the plaintiffs can’t get at the assets of the real estate owned by a different series of the same LLC.

Why Not to Use a Series LLC

I argued that it would be foolish to use a series LLC as a crowdfunding vehicle because:

  1. The series LLC concept has never been tested in a bankruptcy court, so we’re still not 100% sure the walls between cubicles will hold up.
  2. Some states, like Arizona, don’t even recognize the series LLC concept. So if an Arizona resident invests in a series LLC that goes bad, she can theoretically get to the assets owned by every other series of the same LLC. When you have a high-volume portal using a new series over and over, that could be a nightmare.
  3. Using a series LLC rather than a brand new LLC saves less than $200.

FINRA Chimes In

According to a recent statement by FINRA, a series LLC would not satisfy 17 CFR §270.3a-9(a)(6), which requires a crowdfunding vehicle to “Maintain a one-to-one relationship between the number, denomination, type and rights of crowdfunding issuer securities it owns and the number, denomination, type and rights of its securities outstanding.”

FINRA is saying, in effect, that while one series of an LLC might be protected from the liabilities of a different series under Delaware law, the series is not itself an “issuer.” The “issuer” is the LLC itself, i.e., the “parent” limited liability company formed by the portal. Because the securities of that parent do not reflect a one-to-one correspondence with the securities of any particular company raising money on the platform, it doesn’t qualify as a crowdfunding vehicle – it’s a plain vanilla investment company. And investments companies aren’t allowed to use Reg CF (they’re also subject to a bunch of other rules).

For what it’s worth, FINRA’s position about who can be an “issuer” is consistent with SEC practice.

The Upshot

If FINRA is right, it probably means that every offering that used a series LLC as a crowdfunding vehicle was illegal. 

Some possible ramifications:

  • Any investor who lost money can sue the issuer and the funding portal, and possibly their principals.
  • Every issuer can sue the funding portal.
  • Funding portals might be sanctioned by FINRA.

In short, a bonanza for plaintiffs’ lawyers and a black eye for the Crowdfunding industry.

Questions? Let me know. 

chess board raising capital

Improving Legal Documents In Crowdfunding: Give Yourself The Right To Raise More Money

On By crowdfundattnyIn Crowdfunding, Crowdfunding LawsLeave a comment

Interest rates have gone up, real estate valuations have gone down, banks have disappeared, and investors have become more cautious. Many real estate sponsors, faced with looming loan repayments, wonder how they’re going to raise more equity.

They might be surprised when they check the Operating Agreement. Too often, Operating Agreements prohibit the sponsor from raising more equity without the consent of a majority of the LPs or even a single large investor. And getting that consent might not be easy or even possible, for several reasons:

  • Existing investors might not agree that new money is needed.
  • Existing investors might be unrealistic about market conditions, thinking the new equity can have the same terms as the existing equity.
  • Existing investors hate being diluted.
  • Existing investors might prefer to contribute the new money themselves on terms the sponsor believes are exorbitant.
  • A large investor might be angling to buy the property for itself at a fire sale price.

When times are good and the Operating Agreement is signed those possibilities seem far-fetched. Then you get to an April 2023.

Knowing that an April 2023 is always on the horizon, sponsors should negotiate hard at the outset for the right to raise more equity. They won’t always get it because people who write very large checks usually get what they want (that’s why we call it “capitalism”). But in my experience, too many sponsors give away the right too easily or don’t even think about it.

If the sponsor has the right to raise more equity, how do we protect the original investors? What’s to stop the sponsor from raising equity from her own family or friends on terms very favorable to them and very unfavorable to existing investors, even if the equity isn’t needed? 

The answer is “preemptive rights.” If the sponsor wants to raise more equity, she must offer the new equity to existing investors first. Only if they don’t buy it may she offer it to anyone else.

Preemptive rights aren’t perfect. The main flaw is that Investor Jordan, who had money to invest when the deal was launched, has fallen on harder times and doesn’t have money to participate in the new round. Or Mr. Jordan does have the money to participate but is no longer accredited and therefore can’t participate. 

Even with the flaws, preemptive rights generally allow for the equitable resolution of a difficult situation, much better than the alternatives most of the time.

You can see my form here. Let me know if you think it can be improved.

NOTE:  Sponsors might also consider “capital call” provisions, i.e., provisions allowing them to demand more money from investors if needed. In my opinion, however, they typically do more harm than good, driving away investors at the outset while not providing enough cash when it’s needed. And in practical terms, a large investor who would balk at allowing the sponsor to raise more equity certainly won’t agree to an unlimited capital call.

Questions? Let me know. 

Don't Use Lead Investors and Proxies in Crowdfunding Vehicles

Don’t Use Lead Investors And Proxies In Crowdfunding Vehicles

On By crowdfundattnyIn Crowdfunding, Crowdfunding VehiclesLeave a comment

Some high-volume portals use a crowdfunding vehicle for every offering, and in each crowdfunding vehicle have a “lead investor” with a proxy to vote on behalf of everyone else. This is a very bad idea.

Lead investors are a transplant from the Silicon Valley ecosystem. Having proven herself through  successful investments, Jasmine attracts a following of other investors. Where she leads they follow, and founders therefore try to get her on board first, often with a promise of compensation in the form of a carried interest.

A lead investor makes sense in the close-knit Silicon Valley ecosystem, where everyone knows and follows everyone else. But like other Silicon Valley concepts, lead investors don’t transplant well to Reg CF – like transplanting an orange tree from Florida to Buffalo.

For one thing, Reg CF today is about raising money from lots of people who don’t know one another and very likely are making their first investment in a private company. Nobody is “leading” anyone else.

But even more important, giving anyone, lead investor or otherwise, the right to vote on behalf of all Reg CF investors (a proxy) might violate the law. 

A crowdfunding vehicle isn’t just any old SPV. It’s a very special kind of entity, created and by governed by 17 CFR § 270.3a-9. Among other things, a crowdfunding vehicle must:

Seek instructions from the holders of its securities with regard to:

  • The voting of the crowdfunding issuer securities it holds and votes the crowdfunding issuer securities only in accordance with such instructions; and
  • Participating in tender or exchange offers or similar transactions conducted by the crowdfunding issuer and participates in such transactions only in accordance with such instructions.

So let’s think of two scenarios.

In one scenario, the crowdfunding vehicle holds 100 shares of the underlying issuer. There are 100 investors in the crowdfunding vehicle, each owning one of its shares. A question comes up calling for a vote. Seventy investors vote Yes and 30 vote No. The crowdfunding vehicle votes 70 of its shares Yes and 30 No.

Same facts in the second scenario except the issuer has appointed Jasmine as the lead investor of the crowdfunding vehicle, with a proxy to vote for all the investors. The vote comes up, Jasmine doesn’t consult with the investors and votes all 100 shares No.

The first scenario clearly complies with Rule 3a-9. Does the second?

To appreciate the stakes, suppose the deal goes south and an unhappy investor sues the issuer and its founder, Jared. The investor claims that because the crowdfunding vehicle didn’t “seek instructions from the holders of its securities,” it wasn’t a valid crowdfunding vehicle, but an ordinary investment company, ineligible to use Reg CF. If that’s true, Jared is personally liable to return all funds to investors.

Jared argues that because Jasmine held a proxy from investors, asking Jasmine was the same as seeking instructions from investors. He argues that even without a crowdfunding vehicle – if everyone had invested directly – Jasmine could have held a proxy from the other Reg CF investors and nobody would have blinked an eye.

When the SEC issues a C&DI or a no-action letter approving that structure, terrific. Until then I’d recommend caution.

Questions? Let me know. 

Startups

Startup Founders Don’t Need To Make A Section 83(b) Election

On By crowdfundattnyIn Crowdfunding, StartupsLeave a comment

A bunch of websites, including websites of large law firms, advise startup founders to make an election under section 83(b) of the Internal Revenue Code. They shouldn’t have relied on ChatGPT! For almost all startups and almost all founders, a section 83(b) election is unnecessary and foolish.

Section 83 is captioned “Property Transferred in Connection with Performance of Services.” Section 83(a) states the general rule:  if you receive any kind of property in exchange for performing services you have to pay tax on the value of the property. The property could be anything, an old car, a 17th Century Chippendale cabinet, Bitcoin, but in the world of startups the property is usually company stock.

Under section 83(a), if you’re hired as the CTO of Startup, Inc. and receive 10,000 shares of Startup, Inc.’s stock as as part of your compensation package, worth $1.00 per share, Box 1 of your W-2 will include that $10,000 of value, along with your very modest cash salary.

When startups hire CTOs and other service providers, they structure the compensation package so the CTO will stick around. Typically, Startup, Inc. would give you the 10,000 shares today but provide that they “vest” in four tranches, 2,500 today, 2,500 at the end of the first year, 2,500 at the end of the second year, and 2,500 at the end of the third year. If you leave at the end of the second year you own 7,500 shares while the other 2,500 shares disappear.

Section 83(a) says you don’t pay tax on the shares until they vest. So you’d pay tax on the first 2,500 shares this year, then pay tax on the second 2,500 shares next year, and so forth. That’s great! You don’t have to pay tax on the property you receive until it’s vested or, in tax code parlance, until it is no longer “subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture.” 

That’s very fair but in the startup world there’s a downside. You think the shares of Startup, Inc. are worth $1.00 today but you hope they’ll be worth way more in the future – that’s the whole point of the startup. And while section 83(a) allows you to postpone paying tax until your shares vest, the flip side is you pay tax on the value at the time they vest. If the shares are worth $1.00 today you pay tax on $2,500 this year. But if they’re worth $1.65 next year you pay tax on $4,125. And if they’re worth $3.30 the year after you pay tax on $8,250, up and up.

That’s where section 83(b) comes in.  By filing a piece of paper with the IRS – the section 83(b) election – you can choose to pay tax on all the shares today, even on the shares that aren’t yet vested, at their current value, rather than paying tax on the value in the future.

You’re making a bet. If you’re confident the company will succeed, you choose to pay tax on $10,000 today even though you don’t really own all the shares and only have to pay tax on $2,500, hoping to save a lot of tax in the future. If the company fails you lose your bet:  you’ve paid tax on $10,000 of shares that weren’t really worth anything. 

As you might have noticed already, the whole scenario has nothing to do with founders, for two obvious reasons:

  • Leah, the founder of Startup, Inc. didn’t receive her stock by promising to perform services in the future. She received her stock because she formed the company. She transferred to the company the idea for the business, her marketing plans, a little cash, a contract with her first customer, maybe some computer code or other property. In tax parlance she contributed the goodwill.
  • Leah didn’t make her own stock “subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture”! She formed the company and issued all the stock to herself. Period.

For those of you keeping track, the issuance of stock to Leah by her company was tax-free under section 351 of the Code because she owns more than 80%.

The situation I just described is true of about 99.8% of startups. In the other .02% of cases, perhaps a founder teams up with an investor before forming her company and agrees that some of her stock is subject to a vesting schedule. In those cases, and only in those cases, would section 83(b) be relevant.

If your main challenge as a founder is you don’t have enough stuff to file with the IRS, go ahead and file a section 83(b) election even though it’s unnecessary and meaningless. Otherwise spend your time on something else.

Be careful what you read on the internet!

Questions? Let me know. 

Regulation A Resources for Crowdfunding

Updated Crowdfunding Cheat Sheet

On By crowdfundattnyIn Crowdfunding, Crowdfunding Cheat Sheet, Regulation CF, Regulation S, Rule 506(c), Title II, Title II Crowdfunding, Title III, Title III Crowdfunding, Title IV of the JOBS ActLeave a comment

I first posted this Crowdfunding Cheat Sheet in January of 2014. Since then the rules have continued to change and improve. So here’s the current version, up to date with all the new rules and also expanded to answer questions my clients ask. For example, I’ve added a column for Regulation S because many clients want to raise money from overseas while simultaneously raising money here in the U.S.

I hope this helps, especially those new to the world of Crowdfunding.

CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE UPDATED CROWDFUNDING CHEAT SHEET

Questions? Let me know.

Think Twice Before Giving Crowdfunding Investors Voting Rights

On By crowdfundattnyIn Crowdfunding, Crowdfunding Investors, Investor, Investor DisclosuresLeave a comment

I attend church and think of myself as a kind person, yet I discourage issuers from giving investors voting rights. Here are a few reasons:

  • Lack of Ability:  Even if they go to church and are kind people, investors know absolutely nothing about running your business. If you assembled 20 representatives in a room and talked about running your business, you would (1) be amazed, and (2) understand why DAOs are such a bad idea.
  • Lack of Interest:  Investors invest because they want to make money and/or believe in you and your vision. They aren’t investing because they want to help run your business.
  • Irrelevant Motives:  Investors will have motives that have nothing to do with your business. For example, an investor who is very old or very ill might want to postpone a sale of the business to avoid paying tax on the appreciation.
  • Bad Motives:  Investors can even have bad motives. An unhappy investor might consciously try to harm your business or, God forbid, a competitor might accumulate shares in your company.
  • Lack of Information:  Investors will never have as much information about your business as you have. Even if they go to church, are kind to animals, and have your best interests at heart, they are unable to make the same good decisions you would.
  • Drain on Resources:  If you allow investors to vote you’ll have to spend lots of time educating them and trying to convince them to do what you think is best. Any time you spend educating investors is time you’re not spending managing your business.
  • Logistics:  Even in the digital age it’s a pain tabulating votes from thousands of people.
  • Mistakes:  When investors have voting rights you have to follow certain formalities. If you forget to follow them you’re cleaning up a mess.

I anticipate two objections:

  • First Objection:  VCs and other investors writing big checks get voting rights, so why shouldn’t Crowdfunding investors?
  • Second Objection:  Even if they don’t help run the business on a day-to-day basis, shouldn’t investors have the right to vote on big things like mergers or issuing new shares?

As to the first objection, the answer is not that Crowdfunding investors should get voting rights but that VCs and other large investors shouldn’t. The only reason we give large investors voting rights is they ask for them, and our system is called “capitalism.”

Before the International Venture Capital Association withdraws its invitation for next year’s keynote, I’m not saying VCs and other large investors don’t bring anything but money to the table. They can bring broad business experience and, perhaps most important, valuable connections. A non-voting Board of Advisors makes a lot of sense.

The second objection is a closer call. On balance, however, I think that for most companies most of the time it will be better for everyone if the founder retains flexibility.

To resolve disputes between the owners of a closely-held business we typically provide that one owner can buy the others out or even force a sale of the company. Likewise, while we don’t give Crowdfunding investors voting rights we should try to give them liquidity in one form or another, at least the right to sell their shares to someone else.

Give investors a good economic deal. Give them something to believe in. But don’t give them voting rights.

Questions? Let me know.

Improving Legal Documents In Crowdfunding: New Risk Factor For Supreme Court Ruling

On By crowdfundattnyIn CrowdfundingLeave a comment

It appears the Supreme Court is about to strike down Roe v. Wade, allowing states to regulate or outlaw abortion. Many states are poised to do so with varying degrees of severity. 

In his draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Justice Alito states that the decision would not affect other rights, like the right to gay marriage (Obergefell v. Hodges), the right to engage in homosexual relationships (Lawrence v. Texas), or the right to contraception (Griswold v. Connecticut). In my opinion, you should take Justice Alito’s assurance with a large spoonful of salt.. Theoretically, all these cases rest on a constitutional right to privacy. If you knock that pillar down for one right it falls for all of them. On a practical level, Justice Alito himself voted against gay marriage and I have little doubt that there are at least five votes to overturn all these precedents.

Some states are already considering bans on contraception and surely challenges to gay marriage are close on the horizon.

When the COVID-19 pandemic swept the country, companies raising capital had to add one or more risk factor to their offering materials, describing how the pandemic could harm their businesses. I believe the Supreme Court’s opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization calls for the same thing.

Imagine a SAAS company in Austin, Texas, looking to recruit talented young engineers. Imagine the company’s ideal candidate:  a woman who just graduated from Stanford with a specialty in AI. If she has one job offer from the company in Austin and another from a company in Oregon it isn’t hard to see why the Texas company would have a competitive disadvantage, all other things being equal.

Companies are already trying to mitigate the risk. For example, Starbucks has announced free travel to employees to states where abortion is legal. But even that might not eliminate the risk. Do women want to travel out of state for medical care? And, in any case, many states where abortion is or will be illegal are trying to make it illegal to travel out of state for an abortion

Whatever the realities of the marketplace, our job as securities lawyers is to make investors aware of risks so our clients can’t be sued afterward. I suggest the following or something like it in the offering materials of any company where recruitment is important

State Laws Might impair the Company’s Ability to Recruit: The U.S. Supreme Court [seems poised to overturn] [has recently overturned] women’s privacy rights in health care decisions set forth in Roe v. Wade. Moreover, the reasoning used by the Court in overturning Roe v. Wade suggests that other constitutional rights could also become subject to restriction by the states, including the right to gay marriage and use of contraception. Texas, where the Company’s headquarters are located, has enacted strict laws regulating abortion and its political climate is such that it might seek to limit or take away other rights as well. These state laws could impair the Company’s ability to recruit and retain personnel and could put the Company at a competitive disadvantage with companies in other states.

Questions? Let me know.