Category: Investor

tandard SAFE agreement showing how discount and valuation cap terms can create unintended outcomes in early-stage startup financing

Some SAFEs Aren’t Safe

On By crowdfundattnyIn Crowdfunding Investors, Crowdfunding Portals, Investor, Legal Documents, SAFELeave a comment

Why “standard” SAFE terms can produce unintended – and unfair- results.

Simple Agreements for Future Equity are used widely in the startup world, including the Crowdfunding world. My impression, however, is that almost nobody reads them, not companies, investors, or funding portals. That’s too bad, because while SAFEs are simple in theory, they can be extremely complicated and lead to unintended results. Today, I’ll describe what can happen with one variation still being used by some funding portals.

Background

We use SAFEs in the earliest stages of a company’s life, when it’s impossible to know what the company is worth. A founder creates what he believes is an incredible app and goes to the market to raise $700,000 in development costs. Looking into a rosy-colored future, he thinks his company is worth about $50 million already. His investors, aided by their snarky lawyers, think it might be worth $5 million, if everything goes right.

To bridge the unbridgeable gap, we don’t agree on a value. Instead, we issue a SAFE. The SAFE says, essentially, “We’ll wait until later to put a value on the company, when it’s farther along.” Everyone agrees that when the company raises more money in the future, in a round where the parties can agree on a price, then the early investors will get what same price as the new investors get.

Well, not exactly the same price. Because they took more risk by coming in sooner, the early investors get a better price, typically in one of two ways:

  • A Discount:  The earlier investors get a discount vis-à-vis the priced round. If the new investors buy shares for $10.00 each, maybe the earlier investors convert at $8.50 per share, a 15% discount.
  • A Valuation Cap:  No matter how much the new investors think the company is worth, the earlier investors convert at a price that assumes the value of the company is no higher than a “valuation cap” established in the beginning. Here, the early investors might have insisted on a $5 million valuation cap. If the new investors value the company at $10 million, the early investors pay half the price as the new investors. But if the new investors value the company at only $4 million, the earlier investors get that price instead.

I said that early investors typically get either a discount or a valuation cap. But sometimes they get both. In that case, when the new money comes in the SAFE holders get the lower of the price they would get from the discount or the price they would get from the valuation cap.

That’s the best kind of SAFE for investors. Unfortunately, the standard SAFE with both a discount and valuation cap can reach the wrong result.

The Standard SAFE Form Doesn’t Work as it Should

Suppose NewCo, Inc. issued a SAFE with both a discount (15%) and a valuation cap ($5 million), for $500,000. Other than the SAFE, NewCo has 1,000,000 shares outstanding. Now the company is preparing for a priced round of Series A Preferred, in which NewCo will raise $1 million. That triggers a conversion of the SAFE.

NewCo and the new investors agree that NewCo is worth $4 million immediately before the investment. That means that immediately following the investment, the new investors should own 20% of the stock ($1 million investment divided by $5 million post-money valuation). All that’s left is some simple arithmetic to decide how many shares they should receive for their 20% interest.

They should get that number of shares such that, if NewCo were sold for $5 million the next day, they would get exactly their $1 million back.

To calculate that number, we need to calculate how much all the other shareholders would get, including the SAFE holders.

Given the structure of the SAFE, where the holders get the better of X or Y, you might think the standard SAFE would say that upon a sale of NewCo, the SAFE holders receive the higher of the amount they would receive from the discount and the amount they would receive from the valuation cap. But it doesn’t. Instead, it says they will receive the higher of the amount they paid for the SAFE or the amount they would receive from the valuation cap. The discount is nowhere to be found.

In this case, because the valuation cap is higher than the new valuation, the SAFE holders would receive their $500,000 back, nothing more. The other stockholders, who own 1,000,000 shares, will get $3.5 million, or $3.50 per share. And the new investors, to get their $1 million back, should get 285,714 shares of the new preferred for $3.50 each.

Upon a conversion, the SAFE holders receive the better of the number of shares they would receive under the valuation cap and the number of shares they would receive under the discount. Because the $5 million valuation cap is higher than the new valuation, the SAFE holders will get the number of shares under the discount. The share price for the new investors is $3.50, so the conversion price for the SAFE holders, with a 15% discount, is $2.98. Having invested $500,000, they receive 168,067 shares.

The fully diluted cap table now shows:

OwnerSharesPercentage
Original Stockholders1,000,00069%
New Investors 285,71420%
SAFE Holders168,06712%
TOTAL1,453,781100%

Here’s how a $5 million selling price would be divided based on those percentages:

OwnerPercentageConsideration
Original Stockholders69%3,439,308
New Investors 20%982,658
SAFE Holders12%578,034
TOTAL100%$5,000,000

As you see, the new investors get less than they’re supposed to, the original stockholders get less than they’re supposed to, and the SAFE holders get the difference. And that’s not because the SAFE is ambiguous. It’s because that’s how the SAFE was written.

Although Y Combinator no longer uses that SAFE, many still do, including funding portals like WeFunder. 

What Do We Do Now?

If you’re the new investors, you don’t do the deal unless someone makes you whole.

If you’re the SAFE holder, you hold your ground or, if you really want the investment, you negotiate with the existing stockholders.

If you’re the existing stockholders, you try to talk reason to the SAFE holders. That’s not how it’s supposed to work!

If you’re the unlucky founder and own only a chunk of the 1,000,000 shares already outstanding, you’re squeezed. To make the new investors whole on your own, you’ll have to give up 5,042 more shares to the new investors, on top of the shares you’ve already transferred to the SAFE holders because of the structural flaw in the SAFE.

What Do We Do in the Future?

If you’re the company or funding portal, you correct the standard SAFE.

If you’re the new investor and see such a SAFE, you don’t spend a lot of time until the existing stockholders and the SAFE holders figure something out.

If you’re investing in a startup and are offered such a SAFE, you say, Sure! 

Questions? Let me know.

Markley S. Roderick
Lex Nova Law
10 East Stow Road, Suite 250, Marlton, NJ 08053
P: 856.382.8402 | E: mroderick@lexnovalaw.com

SEC Relaxes Accredited Investor Verification Rule For Wealthy People

SEC Relaxes Accredited Investor Verification Rule For Wealthy People

On By crowdfundattnyIn Investor, Investor Verification, Rule 506(c), SEC2 Comments

An issuer raising capital using Rule 506(c) must take “reasonable steps” to verify that all the investors are accredited. Until now, that has normally meant using a third party like VerifyInvestor, which in turn gets a letter from the investor’s accountant. Now it’s going to be a little easier, at least for investors writing big checks.

In a private no-action letter, the SEC allowed the issuer to verify investors without looking at the investor’s tax returns, seeing a letter from the investor’s accountant, or using any of the other methods described in the regulations under Rule 506(c) if:

  • The investor is writing a big enough check — $200,000 for an individual and $1 million for an entity; and
  • The investor promises that he, she, or it is accredited and has not financed the investment through a third party; and
  • The issuer does not have actual knowledge of any facts indicating that the investor is not accredited or has financed the investment.

Technically, the no-action letter doesn’t have the same force as a statute or a regulation. It does, however, reflect the view of the staff of the SEC. Issuers and their lawyers generally can rely on no-action letters, with the understanding that the staff could decide to withdraw or modify its position at any time.

Verifying that an investor is accredited was already so easy, the question is why anyone bothered to ask for this no-action letter. I’m afraid the answer is that growing income and wealth disparities in this country. In some socio-economic circles and for some funds, everyone writes big checks, just as everyone is a “qualified purchaser” for purposes of section 3(c)(7) of the Investment Company Act. The result of the no-action letter is that for that segment of American society, the verification rules no longer exist. 

Two sets of rules, one for the wealthy, another for everyone else. I certainly understand the logic of the no-action letter, but I’m not sure it’s healthy in a macro sense. 

Questions? Let me know.

title III crowdfunding outline for portals and issuers

The Crowdfunding Bad Actor Rules Don’t Apply To Investors

On By crowdfundattnyIn 100 Investor Rule, Accredited Investor, Investor, Investor Disclosures, Reg CF, Regulation A, Rule 506, Title III, Title III Crowdfunding1 Comment

I often see Subscription Agreements asking the investor to promise she’s not a “bad actor.” This is unnecessary. The term “bad actor” comes from three sets of nearly indistinguishable rules:

  • 17 CFR §230.506(d), which applies to Rule 506 offerings;
  • 17 CFR §230.262, which applies to Regulation A offerings; and
  • 17 CFR §227.503, which applies to Reg CF offerings.

In each case, the regulation provides that the issuer can’t use the exemption in question (Rule 506, Regulation A, or Reg CF) if the issuer or certain people affiliated with the issuer have violated certain laws.

Before going further, I note that these aren’t just any laws – they are laws about financial wrongdoing, mostly in the area of securities. Kidnappers are welcome to use Rule 506, for example, while ax murderers may find Regulation A especially useful even while still in prison.

Anyway.

Reg CF’s Rule 503 lists everyone whose bad acts we care about:

  • The issuer;
  • Any predecessor of the issuer;
  • Any affiliated issuer;
  • Any director, officer, general partner or managing member of the issuer;
  • Any beneficial owner of 20 percent or more of the issuer’s outstanding voting equity securities, calculated on the basis of voting power;
  • Any promoter connected with the issuer in any capacity at the time of filing, any offer after filing, or such sale;
  • Any person that has been or will be paid (directly or indirectly) remuneration for solicitation of purchasers in connection with such sale of securities; and
  • Any general partner, director, officer or managing member of any such solicitor.

Nowhere on that list do you see “investor.” The closest we come is “Any beneficial owner of 20 percent or more of the issuer’s outstanding voting equity securities,” but even there the calculation is based on voting power. In a Crowdfunding offering you wouldn’t give an investor 20% of the voting power, for reasons having nothing to do with the bad actor rules. 

So it just doesn’t matter. This is one more thing we can pull out of Subscription Agreements. 

I know some people will say “But we want to know anyway.” To me this is unconvincing. If you don’t ask about kidnapping you don’t need to ask about securities violations.

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.

Married Couples As Accredited Investors

On By crowdfundattnyIn Accredited Investor, Crowdfunding, Investor, Regulation A, Rule 506(b), Rule 506(c), UncategorizedLeave a comment

When a married couple invests in an offering under Rule 506(b), Rule 506(c), or Tier 2 of Regulation A, we have to decide whether the couple is “accredited” within the meaning of 17 CFR §501(a). How can we conclude that a married couple is accredited?

A human being can be an accredited investor in only four ways:

iStock-1125972221.jpg

  • Method #1: If her net worth exceeds $1,000,000 (without taking into account her principal residence); or
  • Method #2: If her net worth with her spouse exceeds $1,000,000 (without taking into account their principal residence); or
  • Method #3: Her income exceeded $200,000 in each of the two most recent years and she has a reasonable expectation that her income will exceed $200,000 in the current year;
  • Method #4: Her joint income with her spouse exceeded $300,000 in each of the two most recent years and she has a reasonable expectation that their joint income will exceed $300,000 in the current year.

A few examples:

EXAMPLE 1: Husband’s net worth is $1,050,001 without a principal residence. Wife’s has a negative net worth of $50,000 (credit cards!). Their joint annual income is $150,000. Husband is accredited under Method #1 or Method #2. Wife is accredited under Method #2.

EXAMPLE 2: Husband’s net worth is $1,050,001 without a principal residence. Wife’s has a negative net worth of $500,000 (student loans!). Their joint annual income is $150,000. Husband is accredited under Method #1. Wife is not accredited.

EXAMPLE 3: Husband’s net worth is $850,000 and his income is $25,000. Wife’s has a negative net worth of $500,000 and income of $250,000. Husband is not accredited. Wife is accredited under Method #3.

Now, suppose Husband and Wife want to invest jointly in an offering under Rule 506(c), where all investors must be accredited.

They are allowed to invest jointly in Example 1, because both Husband and Wife are accredited. They are not allowed to invest jointly in Example 2 because Wife is not accredited, and they are not allowed to invest jointly in Example 3 because Husband is not accredited.

The point is that Husband and Wife may invest jointly only where both Husband and Wife are accredited individually. At the beginning, I asked “How can we conclude that a married couple is accredited?” The answer: There is no such thing as a married couple being accredited. Only individuals are accredited.

CAUTION: Suppose you are an issuer conducting a Rule 506(c) offering, relying on verification letters from accountants or other third parties. If a married couple wants to invest jointly, you should not rely on a letter saying the couple is accredited. Instead, the letter should say that Husband and Wife are both accredited individually.

Questions? Let me know.

You Can Use Subsidiaries Without Violating the 100 Investor Rule

On By crowdfundattnyIn 100 Investor Rule, Crowdfunding, Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (IAA), Investor, JOBS Act, LLCsLeave a comment

crowdfunding_investorEveryone knows the “100 investor rule” is a thorn in the side of Crowdfunding portals. The good news is you can still use subsidiaries to protect yourself from liability.

The basics of the 100 investor rule:

  • A company engaged in the business of investing in securities is an “investment company” and subject to burdensome regulation under the Investment Act of 1940.
  • A “special purpose vehicle” formed by a portal to invest in a portfolio company is engaged in the business of investing in securities.
  • There’s an exception: if the SPV has no more than 100 investors, it’s not an investment company.

Today, most deals on Crowdfunding portals are funded with fewer than 100 investors and qualify for the exception. But that’s because most Crowdfunding deals are still small, i.e., less than $2 million. As the deals get bigger and, most important, as we start to see pools of assets rather than individual assets, SPVs will no longer be available. Already, they’re not available for Regulation A+ deals.

In the absence of an SPV, investors will be admitted directly to the issuer’s cap table. But what if the issuer owns one or more subsidiaries? Will the issuer itself be disqualified as an investment company?

Here’s an example. Suppose NewCo is raising $25 million to acquire 10 properties, and we expect 1,000 investors. We’d like to put each property in a separate subsidiary because (1) we might want to finance them separately, and (2) we don’t want the liabilities arising from one property to leak into another property. But would that make NewCo an investment company, holding the stock (securities) of 10 subsidiaries?

Fortunately, the answer is No.

For purposes of deciding whether NewCo is an investment company, the rule is that you ignore securities issued by any company that NewCo controls, as long as the company itself is not an investment company.

That means NewCo can put Business #1 in Subsidiary #1, Business #2 in Subsidiary #2, and so on and so forth, without becoming an investment company. Most likely, NewCo will hold each property in a separate limited liability company, serving as the manager of each.

Don’t fool around with investment company issues. A company that becomes an investment company without knowing it can face a world of trouble, including having all its contracts invalidated.

Questions? Let me know.

C Corp Vs. LLC: What’s The Right Choice?

On By crowdfundattnyIn C corporations, Crowdfunding, Entrepreneurs, Investor, LLCs, Uncategorized1 Comment

Ryan Feit, the CEO of SeedInvest, just published a great piece in Inc. Magazine about the pressure some entrepreneurs feel from venture funds to convert from a limited liability company to a C corporation. Ryan points out that the tax cost associated with a C corporation often makes the LLC the better choice.

It’s a question I’m asked all the time. And like Ryan, I normally come out on the side of the LLC for Crowdfunding companies, at least so far.

To flesh out the issue, I’ve written an overview, Choosing The Right Legal Entity MSR describing the main characteristics I’m thinking about when I recommend LLC or C corporation. If you want to understand why corporate lawyers seem so isolated at social gatherings, take a look.

Choosing the Right Legal Entity Flyer

Questions? Let me know.

How Much of My Company Should I Give Away?

On By crowdfundattnyIn Crowdfunding, Investing, Investor, JOBS ActLeave a comment

Entrepreneurs and investors alike are often puzzled by this basic question: How much of the company should the investor get?

One approach is through financial analysis and calculations. If you like numbers you will definitely find this approach satisfying.

Suppose you’re raising $500,000. To calculate how much your investor should receive:

  • Step 1: Look at your business plan and see how much annual EBITDA (earnings) your business will be generating in five years from now. Let’s say $800,000 per year.
  • Step 2: Look at the market and see at what multiples companies in your industry sell for. Say the right multiple is 8x earnings.
  • Step 3: Look at the market and see what annual returns investors expect to receive for a company like yours. Say the required rate of return is 30% per year.
  • Step 4: Based on Step 2, your company can be sold at the end of Year 5 for $6,400,000 (eight times $800,000).
  • Step 5: Based on Step 3, your investor will expect to receive $1,856,465 at the end of Year 5 ($500,000 compounded at 30% per year for five years).
  • Step 6: This means your investor should own about 29% of your company ($1,856,465 divided by $6,400,000).

Very elegant and simple.

But also very inexact. At virtually every step, you’re really making educated guesses: how much you will be earning five years (an eternity) from now, the right sales multiple, the return your investor expects to receive. Change any of the inputs and you can get a very different output.

money treeThat’s why in the real world the investor’s ownership percentage is more often the subject of negotiation. The investor wants X, the entrepreneur wants Y, and you try to reach a compromise, depending who has more negotiating power.

The process doesn’t have to involve just horse-trading. For example, if the investor wants 30% because she thinks the company will be worth $5 million in Year 5 and the entrepreneur is willing to give up only 20% because he thinks the company will be worth $7.5 million, there’s an obvious compromise: the investor gets 30% up front, but the entrepreneur can “claw back” part or all of the extra 10% if the company turns out to worth more than $5 million.

In practice, determining how much stock the investor receives is a function of both art and science, although probably more of the former than the latter.

Questions? Let me know.

CFGE Crowdfund Bank And Lending Summit in San Francisco

On By crowdfundattnyIn Crowdfunding, Crowdfunding Portals, Crowdfunding Real Estate, Crowdfunding Speaking Engagements, Entrepreneurs, Equity Crowdfunding, Investing, Investor, JOBS ActLeave a comment

Roderick CFGE

Since Labor Day, I’ve spoken at half a dozen events: for entrepreneurs, for intellectual property lawyers, for finance professionals, for digital marketing groups. This week I’ll be speaking at one of the premier Crowdfunding events in country, the CFGE Crowdfund Banking and Lending Summit on the 16th and 17th in San Francisco.

The conference features some of the leaders in the industry, including:

  • Richard Swart, Director of Research for Innovation in Entrepreneur and Social Finance, Colman Fung Institute for Engineering Leadership at UC Berkeley.
  • Ron Suber, the President of Prosper.
  • Jason Fritton, the Founder and CEO of Patch of Land.
  • Tom Lockard, the Vice President for Real Estate Investment and Institutional Sales of Fundrise.
  • Nikul Patel, the Chief Lending Officer of LendingTree.
  • Jesse Clem, the Co-Founder of LOQUIDITY, LLC.
  • Joy Schoffler, the CEO of Leverage PR.

Whether you’re new to Crowdfunding or an industry veteran, I’d strongly suggest you attend. I’m always amazed how much more there is to learn.

To register, click here. Make sure to use my promo code and receive a 25% discount! Promo code: Roderick

And while you’re there, please stop by and say hello. Crowdfunding and skiing – those are my two favorite topics.

Questions? Let me know.

Encouraging Local Investment In Crowdfunding

On By crowdfundattnyIn Crowdfunding, Crowdfunding Articles, Investing, Investor, JOBS ActLeave a comment

Crowdfunding provides deep pools of capital to entrepreneurs and makes high-quality investments available to individuals for the first time. Those things are great, transformative.

But Crowdfunding achieves its greatest potential at the local level, where communities invest in themselves. An entrepreneur needs capital to start a local business. Her customers are her neighbors. They help design her business to respond to their needs, and they invest in her business to share in the financial rewards and to improve their own neighborhood. There’s a lot more going on there than finance.

I once served on a panel with David Paterson, the former Governor of New York. Governor Paterson spoke about the usefulness of Crowdfunding for community development and community redevelopment, and now works as the Director of Community for iFunding, one of the leading portals.

I have spoken with and represent others thinking along the same lines, putting local money back into local economies.

We should think about ways to encourage localized Crowdfunding investment. When we’re talking about revising Title III, or crafting better state Crowdfunding laws, we should include community development folks in the conversation. They’re going to have better ideas than I have, but I can think of one small step in the right direction.

Why not provide some economic incentive? For example, suppose State X allows a $5,000 maximum investment from non-accredited investors. Why not raise that limit to $7,500 or $10,000 if the project is in the same county as the investor?

That works for two reasons. One, it encourages investing locally. Two, the investor is likely to know more about the project in his neighborhood than he knows about a project on the other side of the state, so he can make a more informed decision. For that matter, as a consumer he might be in a position to help the project after it’s built.

It’s a small step. Crowdfunding is global, but it works even better when it’s local.

Questions? Let me know.