The JOBS Act - Title II: Online Solicitation of Accredited Investors The Platform as a Dating Service
by Joseph W. Bartlett, Special Counsel, Reitler Kailas & Rosenblatt LLC
8 minutes
to read
Online Speed Dating ‘Platforms’
My interest is increasingly captured in the multiplication of speed dating “platforms” which are bringing together … in the same room so to speak, i.e., an online web site … investors and emerging growth companies seeking capital (“EGCs”). I use the word “platform” because it crops up in every third sentence one hears in the course of discussions on the entrepreneurial/innovation economy in the U.S., assuming the subject matter has something to do with raising capital. [1] Both the virtue and vice of “platform” is that, like “metric,” the word can mean just about anything the speaker wants it to mean (“it means just what I choose it to mean” in the immortal words of Humpty Dumpty). [2] A long winded introduction to a listing of the enterprises which I have in mind and forecast (speculation) on what all this may mean.
Let me illustrate by running two lists;
List One: Players Which have a Recognized Profile and a Tested Method of Doing Business
- Secondary Exchanges …SharesPost; Second Market
- Venture Exchanges ….OTCQB
- Accelerators …Y Combinator; TechStars; Start Engine; Accelerprise Ventures
- Alternative Trading Systems; SEC approved in 1998; Regulation ATS
- Business Development Companies launched in 1980 to “democratize” venture investing
- Rewards based platforms… Indiegogo; Kickstarter
- Rule 506(b) curators like AngelList; FundersClub; CircleUp
- Rule 506(c) platforms … EarlyShares; Crowdcube.
- Physical incubators … office space; ping pong tables
- Demo Days. The issuers tell their story from the podium to a pre-selected audience and/or the issuers say nothing about soliciting capital, deal terms or the like. [3]
- Title III portals. Regulated when the Title III Regs are finalized
- Registered Exchanges …NYSE; NASDAQ; OTCQX and Pinks
List Two: All Others
What has my undivided attention at the moment is List Two, which I am describing as “all others.” In that category I am including the likes of GrowVC; Crowdcube; Microryza. These are ‘platforms’ which do not seem to fit into any of the categories recognized as ‘tried and true.”
They appear to be the equivalent of dating bars or restaurants where the parties, the buy and sell sides, can relax, meet up, dress themselves properly, deliver an attractive story and take the temperature of potential sponsors on the platform … too hot, too cold or just right. The drinks served by the bartender can include: model documents; information on valuations; market deal terms and the like.
It is very likely, of course, that each of these ‘platforms’ has been organized with the help of an experienced law firm. And, attention has been paid to such issues as broker dealer registration; general solicitation outside of Title II and Title III, and State blue sky laws which might be applicable. What I’m trying to do is to understand, and then explain to clients and friends how and in what way these ‘platforms’ could be categorized, meaning identified in terms of (i) functionality; (ii) observance of (or navigation around) securities law, rules, regulations and like matters; and (iii) importantly, how the platforms finance their costs of doing business and provide a profit for the organizers sufficient to make the exercise worth the trouble. Many platforms are “affiliated” with a broker dealer which can charge success fees and deals are closed. Is that the answer? Is there a way for platform organizers to take a piece of the EGC?
On the other hand, will periodic subscription charges … cash required for an EGC to join the Platform and speed date … be adequate? Separate charges to cover certain expenses (legal? Compliance?). This is not an attempt, of course, to stigmatize any such ‘platforms.’ Rather it is a learning experience so that yours truly is in a position to give advice to existing and prospective clients and to panels in which I participate on the theory I know what I am talking about.
Let me have your thoughts. Grab any information you have in your files and I will enlist you to be one of the contributing editors to what I may jovially refer to as the Platform Encyclopedia.
P.S. To illustrate the pace at which the game is changing, I urge all hands to eyeball the two blogs by Chance Barnett, a one-upon-a-time client and a source for updates on current events, available online at: https://www.crowdfunder.com/blog/fintech-investments-quadruple-top-trends-to-watch/ and https://www.crowdfunder.com/blog/fintech-trends-the-disruption-of-fundraising/. Once you read Chance’s material, you are likely to be asking a number of questions, including:
Where is the startup world going if the online platforms display pitch materials and investors can (i) hit the “buy” button and own securities, paid for with, let’s assume, bit coins (ii) service providers … e.g., Wealth Forge (http://www.wealthforge.com/) … sanctify the process by handling back office and compliance issues (“reasonable steps to verify” if Title II is the window); (iii) “equity research providers” follow the companies so presenting; (iv) venture exchanges provide liquidity … the OTCQB, for example; (v) due diligence is performed by automated systems … Watsons, including a trolling of the web for, e.g., bankruptcies, criminal convictions, lurid civil cases and the like; (vi) valuation data is provided by VC Experts www.vcexperts.com (disclosure, I am the chair); (vii) survey data on the market standard in deal terms is also provided by VC Experts, in league with Fenwick & West; and (viii) deal terms are translated into economics through Solium Capital’s Scenarios (https://solium.com/product/scenarios/) .
The objection, of course, is that the odds are that x% (50+/-) of early stage companies will tank; how will Joe the Plumber have a shot at a bargain? See the following riposte:
First, the remarks from this explorer about the powers of the Internet and the efficacy of dating services. The analogy is driven from John McPhee’s book on The Control of Nature, commenting on the Mississippi River. It finds its own way to the Gulf regardless in the Mississippi’s case, of the Corps of Engineers’ multiple attempts to influence the river bed with dikes, dams, channels, etc. So also, I daresay, is the Internet. It will enable deal flow up, down and sideways regardless of the dicta laid down by a bureaucrat in D.C. or some State capitol. If the political hacks pipe up about fraud protection, we dust off the favor the Massachusetts State securities regulator did the residents of the State by banning, as too speculative, the IPO of … Apple! Think of the money we saved.
O.K., you say, the Internet is powerful but what does that mean to an investor looking at a FinTech play 3000 miles away? Equity research, you say? Won’t happen, say the critics? The institutions won’t find it dignified (my word) to troll for deal flow on the web. When I recently advanced that theorem to a crowd of younger players, they howled, “Dignified?”, said one. “Fifteen years ago,” he remarked, “it was undignified to look for a spouse on the internet. Now,” he said, “everyone does it.”
Well, how about social media? Encourage Joe the Plumber to troll the web, find the plaudits and/or stink bombs? Do the research the modern way … electronically. Encourage the establishment of online bulletin boards which solicit information from the web on each startup seeking capital and, with the appropriate caveats in the Terms of Use, make the same available to subscribers.
What if the platforms worth their salt band together and hire a curator (I have one in mind) to build a system which tracks each EGC raising capital on the responsible platforms … from start to finish … and forwards the information to a central repository. The data translates into track records … the good, the bad and the ugly. The EGC is dressed up for the electronic senior prom by the likes of Wealth Forge. The confident founders limit the audience by minimum investment levels … $500,000 to play. Can Joe the Plumber play alongside an institutional lead?
The short of the matter is that investing in Newco may well become as simple and easy as buying a lottery ticket and, once a few winners have been posted in the news, players now spending cash on lottery tickets, plus Fantasy Football and other “no chance” online gaming, may well lean in that direction.
Joseph W. Bartlett, jbartlett@reitlerlaw.com
[1] Terms of art include “curators” and “chaperones.” Curators are generally labels attached to the parties which select the issuers for presentation on the platform and chaperones have the function of leading the EGCs, or in some cases the investors who have joined the platform, from step one to the final series of steps in closing the deal.
[2] “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master -- that's all.”
[3] The SEC’s latest take on Demo Days is summarized in by Breheny, DeCapo, Deitz, Duggel, Fernicola & Gao, “Corporate Finance Alert SEC Staff Issues Interpretations on General Solicitation Prohibition,” Skadden Arps Meagher & Flom LLP, Aug. 13, 2015.
“Demo Days or Venture Fairs. The Staff stated that demo days or venture fairs do not necessarily constitute a means of general solicitation. If an issuer’s presentation at a demo days and venture fair constitutes an offer of securities, the presentation may not be a general solicitation if audience is limited to:
– persons with pre-existing substantive relationships with the issuers or the event organizer; or
– persons who have been contacted by members of angel investors networks or similar informal, personal networks of experienced investors.”
2015-10-26
—
8 minutes
to read
<p>My interest is increasingly captured in the multiplication of speed dating “platforms” which are bringing together … in the same room so to speak, <em>i.e.</em>, an online web site … investors and emerging growth companies seeking capital (“EGCs”). I use the word “platform” because it crops up in every third sentence one hears in the course of discussions on the entrepreneurial/innovation economy in the U.S., assuming the subject matter has something to do with raising capital. </p>
2015-03-17
—
13 minutes
to read
Earlier this year, Vice Chancellor Travis Laster of the Delaware Court of Chancery found a financial advisor liable for aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duties by the board of Rural/Metro Corporation in connection with the company's 2011 sale to an affiliate of Warburg Pincus LLC. In its 91-page, post-trial opinion, the Court concluded that the financial advisor allowed its interests in pursuing buy-side financing roles in both the sales of Rural/Metro and Emergency Medical Services ("EMS") to negatively affect the timing and structure of the company's sales process, that the board was not aware of certain of these actual or potential conflicts of interest, and that the valuation analysis provided to the board was flawed in several respects. Both the Rural/Metro board of directors and a second financial advisor to Rural/Metro settled before trial for $6.6 million and $5.0 million, respectively.
2015-03-10
—
8 minutes
to read
The First Circuit’s much-discussed decision in <em>Sun Capital Partners III, LP, et al. v. New England Teamsters & Trucking Industry Pension Fund et al.</em>, No. 12-2312 (1st Cir. 2013) has forced many practitioners and commentators (and, perhaps, tax policymakers) to take another step back and assess the appropriate tax treatment of pooled investment vehicles (in particular, private equity funds). The ultimate holding of the case, however, is far less foreboding for tax purposes than some have made it out to be. In fact, the most relevant aspect of the case from a federal tax perspective may just be a footnote buried near the end of the court’s opinion.
2015-03-03
—
13 minutes
to read
On September 29, 2014, in Czyzewski v. Sun Capital Partners, Inc., the United States District Court for the District of Delaware issued a decision holding that a private equity fund, Sun Capital Partners, Inc. (“Sun Capital”), could not be held liable for its portfolio company’s alleged violation of the WARN Act. Applying the Third Circuit’s test for “single employer” liability, the District Court concluded that Sun Capital and its wholly owned subsidiary, Jevic Transportation, Inc., did not function as a “single employer” for WARN Act purposes. The decision, affirming Delaware Bankruptcy Judge Brendan L. Shannon’s 2013 ruling, provides valuable guidance to private equity funds seeking to ensure that they are not held liable for their portfolio companies’ WARN Act liabilities.
2015-02-24
—
13 minutes
to read
In KKR Financial Holdings LLC Stockholder Litigation (Oct. 14, 2014), the Delaware Chancery Court has continued its march to the drumbeat of business judgment deference. In a putative class action by shareholders of KKR Financial (KFN), who were claiming breach of fiduciary duty by KFN’s board in having approved a $2.6 billion merger with private equity firm KKR, Chancellor Andre Bouchard found that KKR had not been a controlling stockholder of KFN-- because KKR held less than 1% of KFN’s voting power and had no right to appoint or remove directors or block board actions, even though KKR had “total managerial control” of KFN.
2015-02-17
—
8 minutes
to read
2014 Israeli high-tech capital raising hits $3.4 billion – a record high. Key facts: All time high in large deals, above $20 million; Internet companies led capital raising in Q4/2014 with $320 million – 29% of total; VC-backed deals climbed to $845 million in Q4/2014 – the highest amount for a quarter in six years. In 2014, Israeli high-tech capital raising set an all-time record as 688 companies attracted $3.4 billion. The amount was up 46 percent from $2.3 billion raised by 659 companies in 2013.
2015-02-10
—
4 minutes
to read
Should there be a no shop, no solicit clause in the term sheet, which will be binding? From the investor's standpoint, this is often a preferred way to proceed. It avoids the contingency that the Company will "shop" the terms offered by, in this case ABC, LLC, with other potential investors and pick the winning number. This is viewed as a problem for investors, because they will be wasting their time and money on a process which they did not realize would be, in effect, an auction.
2015-02-03
—
5 minutes
to read
The fund raising process for most of the private equity funds … venture, leveraged buyout, secondary and others … is an arduous business. Alan Patricoff remarked several years ago that after he split from Apax to form Greycroft it took him, a Hall of Fame venture capitalist, three years (as I recall) to reach a final closing on the fund he was sponsoring.
2015-01-27
—
6 minutes
to read
2014 VC fund raising reaches $914m - most in 6 years. Key facts: Four VC funds raised more than $100 million each, accounting for 64% of total; Average fund size of $76 million is up 55% from previous year; Only 3 micro-VCs established, compared with 7 in 2013. In 2014, 12 Israeli venture capital funds raised $914 million, the most raised by Israeli venture capital funds in six years. The year's fund raising was up 68 percent from the $544 million raised by 11 VC funds in 2013, and was 18 percent above the 10-year average of $777 million.
2015-01-20
—
6 minutes
to read
As in years past, investors continue to pressure fund general partners for greater transparency, enhanced governance and more performance-based compensation structures. However, they are now also making demands in what would appear to be an unlikely area: insurance coverage.
2015-01-15
—
5 minutes
to read
Journalists, bloggers and various other media outlets often reach out to the team at VC Experts because of our innate ability to gather private company financing details, including share prices, stock splits, valuations, and other unique data often overlooked through other sources.
2015-01-13
—
6 minutes
to read
In an earlier blog (Capping Preferred Participation: A Compromised Compromise), I argued that the usual middle ground between entrepreneur-friendly “non-participating” preferred stock and investor-friendly “participating” preferred stock – capping participation at some multiple of an investor’s base preference – is seriously flawed. Herewith an alternative approach.
2015-01-08
—
3 minutes
to read
Back in November we hosted an event at the NYSE with our partners, ACE Portal. We understand that not everyone was able to join us so we wanted to make the video of the panel discussion available to you. Please feel free to share with others.
2015-01-06
—
6 minutes
to read
Finding funds for early stage companies has always been a great challenge. In past venture financing cycles, it's been the gap between the first venture financing (Series A) and the growth capital or mezzanine financing that many emerging companies were unable to bridge. This gap, called the "valley of death," was attributed to a number of factors, but that valley of death has shifted in important ways in the recent past.
2014-12-30
—
7 minutes
to read
As the global market grows seemingly smaller, more and more companies are expanding their reach around the world. Some companies send U.S. employees overseas, while others hire locally, or even utilize local independent contractors. As in the United States, companies must be mindful of the risks involved when hiring independent contractors in their international operations.
2014-12-23
—
6 minutes
to read
IVC and GKH report: Value of private equity deals in Q3/2014 drops 27% from Q3/2013. Key facts: Israeli PE fund share grows in Q1-Q3/2014, reaching 42%; In Q3/2014 buyout deals return to dominate the PE market.
2014-12-18
—
3 minutes
to read
Back in November ACE Portal and VC Experts hosted The Growth of Private Company Investing: The Importance of Online Platforms, Accurate Data and Robust Analytics event at the NYSE. As a thank-you for attending the event, we gave our latest aggregate report: Fintech - Deal Term and Financings Overview Featuring IEX Group, Motif Investing & Wealthfront to all of our attendees.
2014-12-16
—
8 minutes
to read
At first glance, the all-cash third-party buyout addressed in a recent Chancery Court decision, In re Rural Metro Corp. Stockholder Litig., C.A. No. 6350-UCL (Del. Ch. March 7, 2014), seemed an unlikely candidate for criticism, judicial or otherwise.
2014-12-11
—
2 minutes
to read
Unless you took a hiatus from all things media last week, you probably noticed that Uber raised another measly Billion plus dollar round.
2014-12-09
—
5 minutes
to read
Suddenly, the advance sheets show a wave of litigation targeting private equity funds. See, e.g., Guippone v. BH S&B Holdings LLC, 737 F3d. 221 (2d Cir. 2013) (private equity funds potentially liable for WARN Act liability); Oaktree Capital Management, L.P. v. National Labor Relations Board, 452 Fed. Appx. 433 (5th Cir. 2011) (same for unfair labor practices under National Labor Relations Act); Board of Trustees, Sheet Metal Workers' National Pension Fund v. Palladium Equity Partners, LLC, 722 F. Supp. 2d 854 (E.D. Mich. 2010) (same for multiemployer pension plan liability of a portfolio company).