Bridge Financing Documents

One of the sets of documents that we automated at AlphaTech is the bridge financing documents for an emerging company.  Attached is a sample of the documents: Convertible Note and Subscription Agreement

Instead of just using form documents as most law firms do, robust automation allows us to deliver common document sets for emerging companies in a more efficient manner.  So what else does “robust automation” yield?  It improves document accuracy, provides a valuable knowledgebase from which to draw, and enables us to deliver common document sets to our clients quickly.  It also frees up time of our lawyers to enable them to spend less time on basic contract drafting and more time on activities that afford our clients higher value. Continue reading →

Paper Stock Certificates: A Thing of the Past?

As public companies are increasingly opting out of providing paper certificates to shareholders in favor of providing electronic registration (a movement known as “dematerialization”), most private companies and their shareholders have yet to follow suit.  Issuing uncertificated shares is allowed under most states’ laws, and, as many on the public company side can attest, numerous cost and time efficiencies can be gained by going paperless with shares.  As we accept electronic statements to represent our public company holdings and exhibits to Operating Agreements to note our LLC ownership interests, do we really still need as evidence of our private company ownership a hokey, bordered piece of paper with an eagle on it?

Disadvantages of Issuing Paper Stock Certificates

Consider the inefficiency and chances for errors in the typical cumbersome process to issue paper stock certificates:  Continue reading →

Angel Financing Transaction Form Documents

As a follow up on the angel investor and venture capital term sheet post, I want to elaborate on some efforts to streamline angel investor transactions and reduce related transactional legal costs. In the last year or so, there has been considerable effort to create standardized open source angel financing documents. The first of these recent efforts was from Y Combinator. With the assistance of the law firm of Wilson Sonsini, Y Combinator published the Series AA Equity Financing Documents. Another organization focused on seed stage companies, TechStars, subsequently released its Model Seed Funding Documents, which were prepared by the Cooley Godward law firm. And, most recently, attorney Ted Wang from Fenwick & West led an effort to put together the Series Seed documents. There are others as well, especially form term sheets, such as this one from gust. In coming months, a Midwest group of attorneys and law firms plan to publish a set of documents that will add to the mix, with a Midwest flavor of default terms.

This post provides a brief summary of each publisher of the open source form documents as well as a brief overview of the standardized terms for each set.

The Reasons for Using Standardized Forms in Angel Financings

As mentioned in an earlier post in connection with the National Venture Capital Association‘s (NVCA) efforts in adopting form venture capital investment documents, industry standardization would be helpful to achieve these and other goals:

  • Reduce transaction costs
  • Reduce time to closing
  • Reflect industry norms
  • Promote consistency among transactions
  • Establish certain industry standards
  • Provide basic explanations as to the reason for particular provisions or the context in which certain provisions should be included

While achieving these goals would be laudable, creating a standard set of angel financing documents that are used by various groups presents challenges. I will cover these issues in a later post. But first, here is a summary of the current open source documents:

Y Combinator Series AA Equity Financing Documents

Toward the end of 2008, Y Combinator was the first of the groups to release an open source set of angel financing documents. Y Combinator provides small investments (typically less than $20,000) to computer, Internet, and software startups. Along with the investment, they provide initial consulting and networking opportunities for startups, including a three-month training program in the San Francisco Bay Area. According to Y Combinator, they take a 2-10% equity stake in participating companies. To date, they have worked with over 140 companies.

The Y Combinator documents were originally created for Y Combinator’s portfolio companies to use for their angel financing rounds. Among other provisions, the documents contain a 1x nonparticipating liquidation preference, no springing future rights from subsequent issuances, participation rights, a basic set of representations and covenants from the issuer, and a board seat.

TechStars Model Seed Funding Documents

In early 2009, TechStars released its set of model seed funding documents. TechStars provides up to $18,000 in seed funding to emerging companies, primarily in Internet and software industries. In addition, they provide educational programs and mentoring for three months in Boston, Boulder, and Seattle, with the chance to pitch angel investors and venture capitalists at the end of the program. In exchange for the funding and services, TechStars takes a 6% stake in companies.

TechStars provides its model documents to founders and lead investors as a starting point in seed and angel financing rounds in the $250,000 to $2 million range. The TechStars documents contain, among other provisions, a 1x nonparticipating liquidation preference, broad-based weighted average anti-dilution protection, springing future rights from subsequent issuances, participation rights, a basic set of representations and covenants from the issuer, and a limited right to a board seat that remains in place until the holders drop below 5% ownership of the company on a fully diluted basis.

Ted Wang’s Series Seed Financing Documents

The Series Seed Financing Documents were released last month (March 2010). An important characteristic of these documents is that they are, for the most part, slimmed down versions of the NVCA forms. As a result, investors who use the NVCA documents will generally be familiar with the terms of these documents. According to Ted Wang, the documents are intended for typical angel financing rounds in the $500,000 to $1.5 million range.

Although the documents are intended to be neutral, they generally contain the most investor-friendly terms of the three sets. Among them are assignment of the company’s right of first refusal to investors, drag-along rights, reimbursement of investor legal fees (up to $10k), and protective provisions typical for a company-friendly venture capital financing. Still, some investors have commented that the terms in the Series Seed documents are not aggressive enough.

The Series Seed documents are also intended to be used “as-is” without further negotiation (just fill in the blanks). The philosophy behind this approach is that the value of standardization outweighs the costs of customization: a controversial concept for many companies and investors. Ted Wang has invited comments and is planning to publish a revised set of documents after one quarter, including regular updates thereafter.

Comparison of Angel Investment Form Documents

All three sets of model documents anticipate that the security issued is preferred stock. Generally speaking, the Y Combinator and TechStars documents are more company-friendly than the Series Seed documents, although the TechStars documents contain anti-dilution protection and the other two do not.

While it may sound like only a self-serving comment, the open source forms should not be a substitute for involving an attorney experienced in angel and venture capital financing transactions. Selecting and negotiating terms (and alternatives), addressing the inevitable deal-specific terms not encompassed within the forms, providing a check as to what current “market” is, and securities law compliance are some of the reasons to involve an experienced attorney in the process. That said, industry or at least regional adoption of a standard set of angel investment documents (with common variations) should significantly reduce transaction legal costs, especially if both sides are represented by experienced counsel familiar with the forms.

If and when the Midwest-based angel financing documents are published, I will provide another update.

Due Diligence and Corporate Clean Up in Private Offerings

As outlined in the Overview of the Private Offering Process, when raising equity capital, one of the first things a company should do is prepare a business plan. Good business plans typically include a long-term capitalization strategy. The business plan often forms the centerpiece of the private placement memorandum (PPM), the disclosure document that is typically circulated to investors. When putting together a PPM, the goal is to create both a complete synopsis of the company’s current situation and an accurate summary of the company’s plans for the future.

With a good business plan in hand, people preparing the PPM often turn to “due diligence” and corporate “clean up.” As it relates to private offerings, due diligence is the investigation that ensures that the company-related information and summaries included in the PPM are accurate and complete.

It is not uncommon that during the due diligence process, issues are uncovered that either should have been addressed earlier but weren’t or that need to be completed or addressed prior to the company issuing securities to outside investors. Remedying those items is often referred to as corporate clean up.

The Due Diligence Process

While the due diligence process conducted by venture capital firms is often more detailed than that conducted by angel investors, one should expect at least a base level of due diligence from both groups. Virtually all venture capital firms and most angel investor groups have a formal due diligence process in which they request in writing certain information and access to particular documentation. Here’s a sample put together for angel groups. According to a study sponsored by the Kauffman Foundation in 2007, the median duration of actual due diligence work conducted by angel investors in their large sample was roughly 20 hours per investment. Interestingly, the same study found that the those angel investor groups who spent more than the 20 hours had a 5.9x return on their investment, while those who spent less than the median 20 hours had only a 1.1x return. Regardless of the actual duration of the diligence conducted by groups you may work with, the point that is imperative to get your “house in order” before opening the company up to outside scrutiny.

As part of your disclosures in the PPM, it is essential to accurately summarize all “material” facts concerning the company. A fact is material if a reasonable investor would consider it important in determining whether to purchase the securities that the company is selling. In other words, you need to include all relevant facts that an investor might consider important in making his or her investment decision.

The due diligence process for an individual company should be designed to capture those material facts. The areas that are subject to the due diligence investigation vary from company to company, but often include the following:

  • Organizational documents (e.g., charter documents)
  • Cap Table and Shareholder and option/warrant holder lists
  • Copies of agreements that affect equity holders (e.g., shareholder agreements, voting agreements, investor rights agreements)
  • Financial statements
  • Summaries of litigation or threatened litigation
  • Governmental licenses and filings (including patent applications)
  • Biographical summaries of officers and directors
  • Material contracts
  • Any conflict of interest transactions or arrangements involving the company and its current owners (including their affiliates)

The PPM should include summaries and descriptions of not only the items listed above and the business plan, but also anything else that may be material to a prospective investor’s investment decision.

Government agencies (such as the NASD) have frequently commented that there can be no definitive list of items to be described in the disclosure documents. For example, a company that is seeking funding to support clinical trials should likely also include a summary of additional funding that the company will need after the current financing in order to get the drug or product through all phases of the clinical trials. A software company that is reliant on the adoption of certain third party technologies probably should include details about that technology. In essence, every company is different and each due diligence process must be customized based on the nature of the offering and peculiarities of the company and the industry in which it operates.

Conducting corporate clean-up

Early-stage companies typically spend much of their financial and human resources on product or technology development and attracting and retaining talent. Whether it is because of lack of time, money, or experience, companies often fail to keep up with many tasks that may prove to be important to the success of the company.

What usually occurs is that during the due diligence process, areas that need clean up are revealed. If you think your company is good shape, consider these questions:

  • Have your key employees signed appropriate nondisclosure, assignment of inventions, and noncompete agreements?
  • Have you granted stock options or issued restricted stock to your key employees (perhaps as previously promised or alluded to) and if so, have you complied with the tax code section 409A requirements on valuations?
  • Are your shareholder and director meeting minutes up to date and in compliance with statutory and organizational document requirements?
  • Have all previous stock issuances and significant agreements been properly authorized in the board meeting minutes?
  • Have you filed applicable patent applications (or at least provisional patent applications)?
  • Do you have any agreements or arrangements with others that should be reduced to writing?

These and other matters need to be remedied or addressed before the private offering.

The other form of corporate clean-up prepares the company for its planned structure following the financing. For example, a company’s articles of incorporation and bylaws may need to be amended to reflect changes from the company being owned and run by a small group of founders to one in which there will be a significant number of outside investors. This is especially true if you plan to offer a type of security in the private offering that has not been previously authorized (such as a new series of preferred stock).

Also, sometimes a company will try to complete certain transactions or enter into agreements with one or more “household-name” companies in order to validate the company’s product or technology prior to the offering.

Conducting a thorough due diligence and corporate clean up are essential when offering securities. Doing both creates the foundation for a solid PPM: one that both provides a prospective investor with an accurate picture of the company and limits the liability exposure of the company and its officers and directors.

Changing Your Choice of Entity: Cross-Species Mergers and Conversions

With increasing frequency, companies are considering a change in their form of entity.  The reasons for the change vary considerably: sometimes companies are underwhelmed by the tax benefits of being a limited liability company and are overwhelmed by its complexities (international tax withholding issues, multi-state K-1’s, profits interests management, phantom income, and employee education regarding equity-based incentives), while other times companies are frustrated by the restrictions on S corporations and desire the flexibility that limited liability companies afford.  In other cases still, institutional investors may require a certain form of entity (e.g., a C corporation), while other investors (e.g., active angel investors) are looking to take advantage of pass through losses. 

Today, most states make it fairly easy to change the type of entity or even to change the state of organization of the entity.  It is important to keep in mind though that while the mechanics of converting to a new entity from a legal perspective are not typically too complex, the related tax issues can be incredibly intricate, especially for an organization with a long operating history and a complex capitalization structure.  While in many situations converting to a different type of entity will be tax-free, that will not always be the case.  Your tax advisor and accountants should be consulted early in the process when considering a change in entity form.  Assuming a change in structure is justified and the tax issues are manageable, this article focuses on the mechanics of converting from one type of entity to another.  

While there are variations among the states, there are generally two ways to change your type of entity from a legal perspective: merging with and into another entity of a different type and effectuating a conversion.  The method selected, as well as some of the finer details associated with the particular method selected, is often driven by tax considerations.

Change of Entity Form Through Merger

The more traditional way to change the form of an organization is through a merger.  Sometimes people refer to this as a cross-species merger.  A merger enables two or more entities to combine into a single entity.  The surviving entity can be recently created just to effectuate the change in entity form or it can have an operating history. The surviving entity typically files with the applicable state a plan of merger and a statement that the plan was approved in accordance with applicable law.  In most states, the plan of merger identifies the parties to the merger, the surviving entity, and the manner and basis of converting equity interests in each entity into interests in the surviving entity.  The plan of merger also includes any applicable amendments to governing documents (e.g., articles) for the surviving entity.  

After the merger, only the surviving entity continues to exist and it is responsible for all liabilities of each business entity that is a party to the merger.  Subject to certain exceptions and filing requirements, title to assets automatically vests with the surviving business entity.

Change of Entity Form Through Conversion

Within the last decade, most states have adopted statutes that allow organizations to convert their form of entity by just filing the applicable conversion documentation.  For example, in Wisconsin, a business that desires to convert to another type of legal entity must submit to the Department of Financial Institutions a certificate of conversion with a plan of conversion and a statement that the plan was approved in accordance with the laws applicable to the pre-converted entity. 

Similar to a plan of merger, most states require that a plan of conversion include the name, form of business entity and jurisdiction governing the entity both before and after the conversion.  In addition, the post-conversion articles of incorporation or other charter document is an attachment to the plan of conversion.  Some states however require a separate filing for the charter document.  Like with a plan of merger, the plan of conversion must also include the terms and conditions of the conversion and the manner and basis of converting the ownership interests in the old entity to the ownership interests in the new entity. 

Upon conversion, the new entity continues to be subject to the liabilities incurred prior to the conversion.  If a business owner had any personal liability by reason of the owner’s position in the entity (such as the general partner of a limited partnership), such liability will continue, but only to the extent accrued prior to the conversion.  The new entity continues to be vested with title to all its properties, subject to modest exceptions and certain filing requirements.  Any legal proceeding pending against the old entity will be continued against the new entity.  

Conducting Due Diligence When Changing Your Form of Entity

Despite the fact that the legal filing requirements for cross-species mergers and conversions are rather straight forward and mechanical, there are a number of due diligence issues that should be considered prior to making the change in entity form.  For example, in contracts, a merger is sometimes treated as an assignment of a contract from one entity to another and many contracts prohibit such assignments without prior consent.  Businesses should review all their material contracts and consider seeking consent for assignment where necessary.  Trademark and patent filings in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will need to be updated to reflect new company names in a conversion.  Mergers are treated as an assignment that also needs to be recorded with the USPTO.  Likewise, regulatory approvals, permits and licenses may need to be updated.  Because a conversion, rather than a merger, involves only a single entity, many consider that general contract anti-assignment provisions do not apply to conversions unless conversions are specifically addressed and prohibited.  In either case, however, there is frequently a company name change that may need to be reflected on a variety of documents. 

In addition to third party contracts and government filings and licenses, there are a number of organizational documents that may need to be created as a result of the merger or conversion.  For example, if an entity changes from a limited liability company to a corporation, many of the provisions from the organization’s operating agreement prior to the cross-species merger or conversion will be incorporated into a combination of the new corporation’s bylaws and perhaps a separate shareholders agreement, investor rights agreement or voting agreement.  Some of these organizational-related documents can be adopted wholesale with no or modest changes.  Others, however, will need considerable changes or even termination because of statutory requirements, efficiency, or custom.  

Conclusion

While it would be convenient to have all the facts up front prior to choosing an entity’s form when creating it, even the most diligent and seasoned entrepreneurs experience change in facts or laws that necessitate changing the organization’s form of entity.  With proper planning and involvement of your attorney and accountant, the process of converting your form of entity is usually manageable.  In the end, like with most things, the decision often becomes a cost-benefit analysis.

Preparing for the Investor Presentation

Several companies we are working with are currently preparing for investor presentations.  This post covers a number of best practices for presenting to investors, whether they be angel, venture capital, or strategic investors.

Identify your Objectives for the Investor Presentation

Many companies try to accomplish too much with their initial investor presentation.  Rarely do term sheets get prepared after the first presentation, let alone checks, unless it is a modest sum of money from an angel investor who is already inclined to invest.  So what is a good objective for an initial investor presentation?  In most cases, a good objective is merely to get to the next stage of the investor’s evaluation process. In some situations, the next stage could be a second presentation to a broader audience or a different group within a strategic investor’s organization.  In other cases, it could be to start a formal due diligence process.  Try to identify the prospective investor’s evaluation process prior to the initial meeting to help shape your objective for the presentation.

Know your Investor Audience

As is true for most presentations, your investor presentation should be tailored to your audience.  Prior to the meeting, try to identify who from the investor’s organization will be present during the meeting.  If it is going to be primarily business/finance people (as opposed to technical/scientific), you can expect the questions and discussions to center around their areas of focus and expertise.  Also, see if you can identify who in the room is the ultimate decision maker, gate keeper, or influencer who can enable you to get to the next stage in the evaluation process.  Adjust your presentation accordingly.

Adhere to the Investor’s Rules and Be Respectful of your Audience’s Time

Sometimes, investor groups or forums have particular rules about presentations.  They can limit companies, for example, to a certain number of slides, certain types of slides, or a specified presentation duration.  Adhere to their rules.  If you have a one-hour meeting with a VC or strategic investor, don’t bring a 50-minute slide deck to the meeting (more on this in a bit).  Unless going over the agreed upon time slot is driven by investor questions or two-way discussions, don’t be guilty of holding the investor audience hostage by continuing on with a presentation that seems to never end; a long presentation won’t make your case for investment more compelling. 

Presentation Format and Investor Slide Deck Composition

Assuming you have identified your objectives for the presentation, you know your audience and the restrictions you are under for the presentation, what should the presentation look like?  Usually, the presentation is given by one or two members of the management team (e.g., the CEO and CSO/CTO or CFO).  The appropriate number of slides of an initial one-hour meeting is somewhere between 15 and 25 and should take no longer than fifteen to twenty minutes to present, without interruption. And yes, I know it’s not easy to do and I know it can be a time consuming process to get the presentation that short and succinct.  If the investor is interested, you will have no problem taking the entire hour.  If the investor is not interested, well, everyone can spend the balance of the hour answering emails.

The breakdown of the slides typically works something like this:

  • Speaker introduction and the investment that you are looking for  (1 Slide)
  • Company introduction and “elevator pitch” (1-2 Slide)
  • Identify market(s) and current market problems/opportunities (2-3 Slides)
  • Company solutions and product(s) to address market opportunities (2-6 Slides)
  • Current development status of solution/product line (1-2 Slides)
  • Competition (1-3 Slides)
  • Marketing and distribution/regulatory approval process (1-3 Slides)
  • Revenue model(s) and financial history and projections (1-3 Slides)
  • Use of funds (1 Slide)
  • Management team (1-2 Slides)
  • Anticipated Exit and Timing (1 Slide)
  • Recap the 2-3 main points and state the investor “call to action” (1 Slide)

Of course, there can be variations to this format.  For example, a presentation to a potential strategic investor technical team should include less on market opportunities and more on product and technology.

Many times, the initial presentation is the first opportunity that an investor has to evaluate you, which for most early stage angel and VC investors is more important than your product or technology. Presumably, if a prospective investor has read your executive summary/business plan and wants a presentation, you’ve passed the initial screen and the investor is already at least somewhat interested in your company.  So, it’s important to remember that you are not only selling them your product/technology, but also you and your management team.

Backup Slides for Investor Questions and Areas of Focus

It is generally a good idea to prepare backup slides to address the key questions that you anticipate or areas that you are likely to be asked to elaborate on if the investor is interested.  This goes back to knowing your audience.  You may also want to develop a system to figure out how to access particular backup slides so that you are not fumbling through the PowerPoint while the investor has to wait.

Miscellaneous Best Practices for Investor Presentations

Finally, here are some miscellaneous nuggets to consider, based on the investor presentations I’ve seen over the years:

  • Coordinate in advance the audiovisual requirements (who is going to have/bring what)
  • Have a backup plan (e.g., hard copy of slides)
  • Use the PowerPoint slides as a guide to the discussion, not as cue cards
  • Maintain eye contact with your audience, not the screen
  • Let your passion and excitement about your business show through
  • Do not say that your company does not have competition or any other naive faux pas
  • Walk the fine line between exuding confidence, but not appearing overconfident
  • Address any 800 pound guerillas positively in the presentation rather than waiting for the inevitable questions and what could be construed as defensive responses
  • Avoid eye charts (e.g., detailed spreadsheets, elaborate process or flowchart diagrams); more text does not yield a more compelling case for investment
  • Similarly, convey no more than 2-3 points per slide, with font no smaller than 24 pt
  • If possible, use a good mix of images and text
  • And lastly, rehearse, rehearse, rehearse

Best Practices for the Friends and Family Financing Round

When companies start up, often the first place they look for seed financing is from friends and family. As frequently as they occur, there is very little available on the details of what consists of a “good” friends and family financing. In this post, we will go through some of the considerations for your next friends and family round of financing.

Friends and family financings are frequently the first financing from outsiders of the company. Increasingly though with tough financial times, companies are relying more heavily and for longer periods of time on friends and family support to get them through the early times. So, let us get into some of the details.

Type of Securities to Issue

Almost invariably, when the company is a corporation, the company issues common stock in the friends and family round. For limited liability companies (LLCs), the security issued in the friends and family round is whatever the common stock comparable security is for the LLC—sometimes it is referred to as Class A Units or sometimes it is just a percentage interest or just “units” (if the LLC has only one class of securities). As LLC capital structures are most often a matter of contract per the company’s operating or LLC agreement and the laws vary from state-to-state, there is no single standard name for the type of security.

As later posts will echo, one important point to keep in my mind in terms of deciding on the type of security to issue is the importance of keeping the capital structure simple. In this case, with a friends and family round, it is typically best to issue common stock (or the LLC comparable). While one sees convertible notes, a “stripped down preferred,” or a certain level of warrant coverage, I recommend keeping the capitalization structure as simple as possible, for as long as possible.

Pricing

High Risk and High Price?

Pricing is often a difficult topic for a friends and family round. In my experience, it is often the round least likely where one is to see negotiation on price. It is not uncommon, however, for the friends and family round to be overpriced. How do I know that? Few would argue that of all the rounds of outside investment that companies go through, the friends and family round is likely where there is the most risk (technical and commercial) and there is likely the fewest tangible and intangible assets. I’ve seen some statistics indicate that over 90% of tech startups end unsuccessfully. Yet, it is (1) very common to see seven (or in some cases, eight) figure pre-money valuations for not much more than a skeleton of a management team, a business plan, and a patent application, license right, prototype, or vaporware, and (2) not uncommon to see either a flat round or better terms offered in the first VC or angel deal following the friends and family financing. It is not that entrepreneurs are trying to take advantage of their friends and family. But rather, it is likely because they are overly optimistic concerning their prospects; they are entrepreneurs after all, and a good sense of optimism is essential to success.

Impact of Price on Subsequent Rounds

When pricing a friends and family round, it is also important to consider the impact of the price in the context of the long term capitalization strategy. I talk about the long term strategy in my earlier post, Capitalization Strategy: Begin with the End in Mind. As mentioned in the previous paragraph, a common problem that some entrepreneurs face is having too high of a price in the friends and family round (or subsequent angel round for that matter). How can too high of a price be a problem for a company? After all, a higher price means less stock is issued and therefore less dilution. The reason it can be a problem goes back to your long term plan. Often, a high price in an early round yields problems in later rounds in terms of existing investor expectations. If you understand the likely pricing expectations of later round investors, those expectations should be incorporated in earlier round pricing. Promising companies can sometimes get too aggressive on pricing in early rounds and often stall, not because of their technology or lack of success in their commercialization efforts, but rather because they cannot find financing sources that meet their existing investor expectations. So, after a considerable delay in not getting a timely financing, companies are forced to consider either (a) “down round” pricing to get the amount of financing they need from subsequent round investors or (b) accepting less investment (most likely from existing investors) and prolonging the current share pricing as they hobble along and exist on less than ideal amounts of financing. Also, by accepting down round pricing, it can not only affect morale of existing investors but also employees as well in terms of the perception of the direction and speed of the company’s momentum.

Effect of Price on Stock Options

On a related note to employees, one other thing to keep in mind is the impact of your friends and family round pricing on your stock option pricing (or other equity-based incentive), especially if you issue common stock in the friends and family round. The price at which you sell your securities will likely affect significantly your stock option exercise price or the amount that has to be taken into income by employees and contractors if stock or other equity-based securities are issued to them. This is especially true as the ability to issue discounted stock options is no longer the option (pardon the pun) it once was in light of tax code section 409A. This is one area where offering convertible notes (or preferred stock) to friends and family yields a benefit over common stock.

Accredited Investor Status

As a general rule, it is best to limit your friends and family offering to accredited investors only. Many companies want to enable their friends and family who are not well off to “get into the action” early. Ignoring the issue of whether friends and family who are not accredited can bear the risk associated with an investment in a start-up, by including friends and family who are not accredited in an offering can drive up your legal costs to do the transaction and increase the risks of legal problems associated with the entire offering. If you are considering including investors who are not accredited in your offering, have a discussion with your attorney first before announcing the offering. Doing so will help to ensure that you make an informed decision without the pressures of the implications of backing down from an earlier announcement to your friends and family.

Amount of Funding

The amount of financing should be driven by, you guessed it, your long term capitalization plan. Conventional wisdom is that you should raise sufficient money to comfortably get you to the next significant milestone that increases your valuation. However, there are some companies that believe that they should get as much money as they can, as soon as they can. The problem with this latter approach is that, assuming your subsequent round financing is an up-round, you will suffer more dilution by getting the money earlier than what you would otherwise experience by waiting and then selling the securities later at a higher price. Also, some people believe that companies can become less efficient, less “hungry,” and lose their sense of urgency with significant amounts in the bank. On the flip side, a benefit of raising more in an early round is that less time is spent on subsequent fundraising. In addition, as those who adopted this approach a year ago will say, they are not now seeking financing in what is a very difficult time to raise money.

Importance of the Friends and Family Round

While typically not the biggest round of financing to say the least, the friends and family financing is essential for most high growth companies. It is important to do the financing right and not fall into one of the easy traps that create problems later in the company’s life cycle. If there’s interest, I can elaborate on some other traps and pitfalls in a later post.